Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Citation
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Parent Document
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1967-02-03
Other Sections in This Document (40)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
- Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589 (1967)
Full Text
641 charsIn granting Scheen’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court accepted this view of the matter, adopting Scheen’s contention. The doctrine of election of remedies is, of course, thoroughly entrenched in the jurisprudence of this State, and it is also received and almost universally approved. In a context of this kind, the doctrine simply means that when a person has at his disposal two modes of redress, which are contradictory and inconsistent with each other, his deliberate and settled choice and pursuit of one will preclude his later choice and pursuit of the other. See Riley v. Cumberland & M. R. Co., 234 Ky. 707, 29 S.W.2d 3.