74 Ky. 677 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1876
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plea of limitation was not available, although more than a year bad intervened between the speaking of tbe slanderous words complained of and the commencement of the
The principle that was recognized and applied in the cases of Newland v. Gentry (18 B. Mon. 670) and Allen v. Troutman’s heirs (10 Bush, 61) is applicable in this case.
The demurrer to so much of the answer as set up and relied on the statute of limitations was properly sustained.
The female plaintiff having intermarried with an infant husband, the court properly entered him upon the record as a co-plaintiff and properly allowed the action to proceed in the name of Elliott, as next friend to both of the infant plaintiffs.
The motion of appellant to dismiss the action, based as it was upon the paper purporting to be an agreement on the part of the infant plaintiffs to discontinue it, was properly overruled. That paper, if it evidenced an enforceable agreement or contract, could only be made available as a defense by being pleaded. Merely filing it in the papers of the case did not make it part of the record for any such purpose.
This case differs from the late case of Anderson v. Anderson
■ It is not complained that the court erred in giving or refusing instructions nor in admitting, Or rejecting testimony. '
Judgment affirmed.
Ante, 327.