Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Citation
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Parent Document
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1929-04-30
Other Sections in This Document (12)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
- Dickerson v. Gray, 19 S.W.2d 1085 (1929)
Full Text
728 charsThe principal reason assigned by appellant as to why the judgment should be reversed is that the contract as testified to by appellee is invalid. We are not called upon to consider that question, however, as the court is of the opinion that the former judgment was and is a bar to this proceeding, although there was no written plea of res judicata. The practice in forcible detainer proceedings conforms to that in criminal proceedings (Jolly v. Gilbert, 190 Ky. 1, 226 S. W. 354), and a plea of not guilty puts in issue all questions; indeed, it is not even required that there be a formal joinder of issue on the traverse (Tolbert v. Young, 172 Ky. 269, 189 S. W. 209). The defendant may rely on any legal defense he *386 has