Fudge v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

Fudge v. Brown

224 S.W.2d 137, 311 Ky. 381, 1949 Ky. LEXIS 1128

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

DecidedOctober 21, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 S.W.2d 137 (Fudge v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fudge v. Brown, 224 S.W.2d 137, 311 Ky. 381, 1949 Ky. LEXIS 1128 (Ky. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Stanley, Commissioner

Dismissing appeal.

Tbe appeal is from tbe Knox County Court in a babeas corpus proceeding instituted by tbe appellant, Stella Fudge, to recover custody of ber four year old child from ber paternal grandparents. Tbe case was decided adversely to tbe petitioner by a county judge pro tern. A motion bas been made by tbe appellees to dismiss tbe appeal because it was not filed witbin ten days after judgment. Sec. 429-1, Criminal Code of Practice. Issues have been joined on tbe motion as *382 to whether or not the judgment was actually rendered within the period or at a much earlier date. It is quite apparent there were serious irregularities. But we do not find it necessary to decide the issue since the appeal must be dismissed on another ground.

The judge of a county court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus unless there is no circuit judge in the county at the time. Section 399, Criminal Code of Practice. In such a case the record must show affirmatively that the county judge has jurisdiction. Bard v. Bard, 295 Ky. 254, 173 S. W. 2d 569; Robinson v. Kieren, 309 Ky. 171, 216 S. W. 2d 925. There is not even a suggestion in the present record that there was no circuit judge in Knox County at the time the writ was issued. The county court should -have disclaimed jurisdiction and dismissed the proceeding. Johnson v. Harvey, 261 Ky. 522, 88 S. W. 2d 42.

Since the county court was without jurisdiction to determine the case, this court likewise is without power to decide any question save and alone that it is without jurisdiction to consider tHe appeal. Martin v. Board of Council, 275 Ky. 142, 120 S. W. 2d 761; Furst v. Meek, 297 Ky. 509, 180 S. W, 2d 410. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

It may be proper to observe that since the action of the county judge pro tem was void, it does not prevent subsequent proceedings seeking the same end.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Stanley, Commissioner

Dismissing appeal.

Tbe appeal is from tbe Knox County Court in a babeas corpus proceeding instituted by tbe appellant, Stella Fudge, to recover custody of ber four year old child from ber paternal grandparents. Tbe case was decided adversely to tbe petitioner by a county judge pro tern. A motion bas been made by tbe appellees to dismiss tbe appeal because it was not filed witbin ten days after judgment. Sec. 429-1, Criminal Code of Practice. Issues have been joined on tbe motion as *382 to whether or not the judgment was actually rendered within the period or at a much earlier date. It is quite apparent there were serious irregularities. But we do not find it necessary to decide the issue since the appeal must be dismissed on another ground.

The judge of a county court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus unless there is no circuit judge in the county at the time. Section 399, Criminal Code of Practice. In such a case the record must show affirmatively that the county judge has jurisdiction. Bard v. Bard, 295 Ky. 254, 173 S. W. 2d 569; Robinson v. Kieren, 309 Ky. 171, 216 S. W. 2d 925. There is not even a suggestion in the present record that there was no circuit judge in Knox County at the time the writ was issued. The county court should -have disclaimed jurisdiction and dismissed the proceeding. Johnson v. Harvey, 261 Ky. 522, 88 S. W. 2d 42.

Since the county court was without jurisdiction to determine the case, this court likewise is without power to decide any question save and alone that it is without jurisdiction to consider tHe appeal. Martin v. Board of Council, 275 Ky. 142, 120 S. W. 2d 761; Furst v. Meek, 297 Ky. 509, 180 S. W, 2d 410. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

It may be proper to observe that since the action of the county judge pro tem was void, it does not prevent subsequent proceedings seeking the same end.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 S.W.2d 137, 311 Ky. 381, 1949 Ky. LEXIS 1128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fudge-v-brown-kyctapphigh-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack