Gregory v. Brown

7 Ky. 28, 4 Bibb 28, 1815 Ky. LEXIS 24
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedApril 19, 1815
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 7 Ky. 28 (Gregory v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gregory v. Brown, 7 Ky. 28, 4 Bibb 28, 1815 Ky. LEXIS 24 (Ky. Ct. App. 1815).

Opinion

OPINION of the Court, by

Ch. J. Bovin.

The defendant, in the capacity of á justice of the"'peacc, gave" jy^gjuent in favor of the plaintiff against one Thorp, fori the costs of a suit by warrant j but having at a subse-queht day so altered the judgment as to make each par--. pay ⅛⅛ 0Wn cost, the plaintiff being previously summoned to shew cause against such alteration ,* he refused, on the application of the plaintiff, to issue an execu-Up0n the first judgment. For that refusal the brought an action upon the case ; and the question now tó be decided is, whether the action is maintainable or not ?

Whether a magistrate, after he has once pronounced, a judgment, can, at a subsequent day, grant a reheaiv [29]*29ing, and suspend or alter such judgment, is ai question about which we are aware there has been muctt difference of opinion in the country, amongst men of legal information, as well as. amongst the magistrates them-selyes. .This is a point, however, we do notin this case deem material to he decided: tor be if as it may, we are. of opinion the action cannot be maintained* There can he no question that the subject matter was within theju-risdiction of the magistrate ; and where a magistrate acts judicially upon a subject within his jurisdiction, though he should act illegally or erroneously, he cannot be made liable for any damage sustained by his conduct, unless he has acted from impure or corrupt motives. And. in this case the state of the pleadings repels any conclusion of that sort. The Court below therefore decided correctly for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

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

Related

Manning v. Ketcham
58 F.2d 948 (Sixth Circuit, 1932)
Moser v. Summers
189 S.W. 715 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1916)
Glazar v. Hubbard
42 S.W. 1114 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1897)
Henderson v. Smith
26 W. Va. 829 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1885)
State v. . Sneed
84 N.C. 816 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1881)
Wilson v. Cribbage
9 Ky. Op. 856 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1878)
Dœpfner v. State ex rel. Altland
36 Ind. 111 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)
Hiss v. State
24 Md. 556 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1866)
Revill v. Pettit
60 Ky. 314 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1860)
Morgan v. Dudley
57 Ky. 693 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1858)
Reed v. Conway
20 Mo. 22 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1854)
McGrew v. Governor
19 Ala. 89 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1851)
Stone v. Graves
8 Mo. 148 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1843)
State ex rel. Conley v. Flinn
3 Blackf. 72 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1832)
Lincoln v. Hapgood
11 Mass. 350 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1814)
Briggs v. Wardwell
10 Mass. 356 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1813)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Ky. 28, 4 Bibb 28, 1815 Ky. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-v-brown-kyctapp-1815.