Case Name: Bentley, et al. v. Regal Block Coal Company
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1927-02-11
Citations: 218 Ky. 258
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bentley, et al. v. Regal Block Coal Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 218
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
Bentley, et al. v. Regal Block Coal Company.
(Decided February 11, 1927.)
A. J. MAY, ED. L. ALLEN and W. P. MAYO for appellants.
J. C. HOPKINS and HARMA'N, FRANCIS & HOBSON for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court by
Judge Dietzman
Reversing
This is the second appeal in this case. The opinion in the first appeal may be found in 204 Ky. at page 66, 263 S. W. 683. On the return of the case to the circuit court, the appellee over the appellants' objection filed an amended answer, in which it pleaded that appellants had at all the times involved in this litigation been doing business under a fictitious name, without having filed the certificate called for by section 199b of the statutes. The appellee relied on this failure as a bar to appellants ' suit. Appellants demurred to this amended answer. Their demurrer being overruled, they filed a reply, admitting their failure to file the. certificate, and attempting to plead an estoppel against the appellee's relying on that, failure as a defense to this suit. A demurrer was sustained to this reply, and, the appellants declining to plead further, their suit was dismissed, and they have appealed.
Appellants' ground for reversal is that the appellee had no right to file its amended answer at the late stage of this litigation it did. However, we need not decide that point, for, since the trial court overruled appellants' demurrer to that answer, in accordance with the rule of Hunter v. Big Four Auto Co., 162 Ky. 778, 173 S. W. 120, L. R. A. 1915D, 987, this court has overruled the Hunter case. Hayes v. Providence Citizens' Bank & Trust Co., 218 Ky. 128, 290 S. W. 1028. In the Hayes case we held that a failure to file the certificate called for by section 199b of the statutes 'did not preclude one doing' business under a fictitious name from recovering on one's otherwise unobjectionable contracts, entered into- in the course of that businesls. It results, therefore, that the amended answer of the appellee presents no def ense to appellants ' cause of action, land appellantsi' demurrer thereto should be sustained.
Judgment reversed, for proceedings consistent with this opinion.