He subsequently filed an amended answer setting up the Ohio statute of limitations.
On the next day the parties appeared in open court, and a new amended answer was filed.
Subsequently, exceptions were sustained to an answer, and thereafter an amended answer and a replication were filed.
On the 3d of November, 1887, the plaintiff replied to the amended answer, denying the charge of negligence, and demurred to the third clause thereof, which pleadd the Kansas statute of limitations.
This amendment was consented to by counsel, on condition that the demurrer which had been filed to the first amended answer should be considered as pleaded against the last answer, and that it be submitted.
Shortly before the trial commenced, defendant filed an amended answer raising the issue of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff for failure to wear an available seat belt and to sound the horn.
The record does not support this contention, although it indicates that the pleader intended that the demurrer and the denial should have that effect, but mistakenly applied them to the last amended answer.
On the 18th of November, 1886, an amended answer was filed, averring that the plaintiff's injury resulted from his own negligence, and pleading in bar of the action a limitation of two years under the laws of the state of Kansas.
