Harrod v. Dismore

26 N.E. 1072, 127 Ind. 338, 1891 Ind. LEXIS 209
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided March 10, 1891·No. No. 14,853·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Elliott, J.

The appellant seeks by his complaint to enjoin the collection of a judgment rendered against him for violating the statute prohibiting the obstruction of public ditches.

The contention of counsel is that the statute requires that the defendant in such a prosecution shall be fined ten dollars, and that, as the fine imposed was only five dollars, the judgment is void. This contention can not prevail. The court had general jurisdiction of the subject, and its judgment, even if erroneous, can not be collaterally assailed. The error complained of would not avail in a direct attack, since the imposition of a less fine than the law requires in a case where the only punishment is a fine, is not prejudicial to the defendant. Nichols v. State, post, p. 406.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Harrod v. Dismore, 26 N.E. 1072, 127 Ind. 338, 1891 Ind. LEXIS 209 (Ind. 1891).

26 N.E. 1072 (Harrod v. Dismore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mates v. State
165 N.E. 316 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1929)
Hunnicutt v. Frauhiger
158 N.E. 572 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1927)
Peters v. Koepke
59 N.E. 33 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1901)
Ballard v. City of Chicago
69 Ill. App. 638 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1897)
State v. Arnold
42 N.E. 1095 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1896)
Turner v. Conkey
17 L.R.A. 509 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1892)