Conrad v. Bitroff

Wayne Circuit Court

Conrad v. Bitroff

1 Mich. N.P. 204

DecidedJuly 15, 1870

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Mich. N.P. 204 (Conrad v. Bitroff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wayne Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conrad v. Bitroff, 1 Mich. N.P. 204 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Patchin, J.

It is conceded that the judgment on which the execution in question was issued wasinvalid because of the irregular adjournment, but it was claimed by the counsel for defendant that the judgment could not be attacked collaterally, and I so held in the trial before t.he jury.

The case in 1 Douglass, I think settles the question conclusively, that when the justice has not jurisdiction to render the judgment it may be attacked collatteraily. Therefore the refusal to charge the jury as requested was wrong, and the motion for a new trial must be granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court,

Patchin, J.

It is conceded that the judgment on which the execution in question was issued wasinvalid because of the irregular adjournment, but it was claimed by the counsel for defendant that the judgment could not be attacked collaterally, and I so held in the trial before t.he jury.

The case in 1 Douglass, I think settles the question conclusively, that when the justice has not jurisdiction to render the judgment it may be attacked collatteraily. Therefore the refusal to charge the jury as requested was wrong, and the motion for a new trial must be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Mich. N.P. 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conrad-v-bitroff-ohcirctwayne-1870.