Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant

Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 215 S.W. 76 (Ky. Ct. App. 1919)

Subsequent history: rev'd, Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U.S. 282 (1921). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)

Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky · State Appellate Courts
Decided: October 17, 1919
Judges: Clarke
Citations: 215 S.W. 76185 Ky. 3861919 Ky. LEXIS 305

Cited by 4

Headnotes

Appeal and Error — Former Appeal — Judgment in Obedience to Mandate. — Where upon a second appeal no question of either fact or law not decided upon the first appeal is presented and the judgment appealed from was rendered in obedience to the (mandate of the Court of Appeals, the judgment must be affirmed. (See Bondurant v. Dahnke-Walker Milling Co., 179 Ky. 774.)

Summary

Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Clarke

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion of the Court by Judge Clarke

Affirming.

This is an action by the Dahnke-Walker Milling Company against C. T. Bondurant to recover damages for a breach of contract. Upon a former appeal of the case a judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed upon the ground that the contract was unenforcible by the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, because of its failure to comply witb section 571 of Kentucky Statutes; and tbe cause was remanded for a new trial with directions to direct a verdict for defendant if the evidence should be *387 the same as on the first trial. See Bondurant v. DahnkeWalker Milling Co., 179 Ky. 774 .

The evidence being the same upon the second trial as upon the first, the trial court in obedience to the mandate of this court directed a verdict for the defendant and dismissed the petition, from which judgment the plaintiff has prosecuted this appeal.

Since no question .of either fact or law, not decided by our former opinion in this ease, is presented by this appeal, and the judgment now appealed from was rendered in obedience to our mandate and in conformity with our view of the law, as fully set forth in that opinion, reported in 179 Ky. 774 , and to which we adhere, it is obvious that the judgment must he and it is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant257 U.S. 282 (1921)
E. C. Artman Lumber Co. v. Bogard230 S.W. 953 (Ky. Ct. App. 1921)
Hughes v. R. O. Campbell Coal Co.258 S.W. 671 (Ky. Ct. App. 1924)
Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Co. v. Commonwealth474 S.W.2d 873 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971)

Most recent

Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Co. v. Commonwealth474 S.W.2d 873 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971)
Hughes v. R. O. Campbell Coal Co.258 S.W. 671 (Ky. Ct. App. 1924)
Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant257 U.S. 282 (1921)
E. C. Artman Lumber Co. v. Bogard230 S.W. 953 (Ky. Ct. App. 1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Borderland Coal Co. v. Miller, 201 S.W. 299 (Ky. Ct. App. 1918)	5

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list