Case Name: Detherage vs. Montgomery
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1868-09-29
Citations: 4 Bush 46
Docket Number: 
Parties: Detherage vs. Montgomery.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 46–47

Head Matter:
CASE 13-PETITION ORDINARY
SEPTEMBER 29.
Detherage vs. Montgomery.
APPEAL PROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.
Motion for a new trial in the circuit court is essential in an action wherein the issue presented by the pleadings was submitted to a jury. The failure to make such motion precludes the appellant from the opportunity of having the errors complained of corrected in the Court of Appeals. [Humphreys vs. Walton, 2 Bush, 580.)
J. W. Middleton and J. L. Caldwell, For Appellant,
CITED—
1 Greenleaf on Evidence, secs. 390, 394, 397.
2 Met., 613 ; Millet vs. Parker.
Bullock & Davis, For Appellee.

Opinion:
JUDGE PETERS
delivered the opinion oe the court:
The issue presented by the pleadings was submitted to a jury, and after the rendition of a verdict, and judgment thereon, no motion was made for a new trial, but an appeal by the defendant below was prayed to this court, and time obtained to make out and have allowed a bill of exceptions.
In Humphreys vs. Walton, 2 Bush, 580, this court said : " On an issue, and trial of a fact by a jury, a motion for a new trial is essential to correct the errors growing out of the evidence or instructions, before an appeal can be entertained by this court:"
The failure, therefore, of appellant to move for a new trial in the court below, to have the errors complained of corrected, precludes him from the opportunity of having them corrected here.
Wherefore, the judgment must be affirmed.