Harrod v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Harrod v. Hill

32 Ky. 165, 2 Dana 165, 1834 Ky. LEXIS 52

DecidedMay 5, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Ky. 165 (Harrod v. Hill) 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

Harrod v. Hill, 32 Ky. 165, 2 Dana 165, 1834 Ky. LEXIS 52 (Ky. Ct. App. 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Tms is an action of replevin, in which, though the officer returned that he liad, according to the command of the writ, restored the property which had been replevied, the circuit court rendered judgment retorno habendo, as well as for damages and costs.

The judgment retorno is erroneous. But, though this is admitted, the counsel for the defendant in error, having produced a supplemental record shewing a remittitur of u the damages” in the circuit court, and offering to enter a similar remittitur in this court, insists that the judgment should be affirmed.

It is not material to determine whether, as was said by the supreme court of the United States in The Bank vs. Ashley, 2 Peters, 327, a remittitur in the inferior court after error brought, should be available in this court, so as to produce an affirmance at the costs of the defendant in error. Nor need we intimate, whether this court should, or could rightfully, establish such a rule as that made by the supreme court in the case in 2nd Peters (supra,) as to the effect of a remittitur in this court : because, in this case, the judgment for a return of the property has not been remitted, and no offer to remit it has been made here, or in the circuit court.

Wherefore, for the error in giving judgment (by default,) for a return of the property, the restoration of which by the officer, pursuant to his writ is proved by his official return upon it, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Tms is an action of replevin, in which, though the officer returned that he liad, according to the command of the writ, restored the property which had been replevied, the circuit court rendered judgment retorno habendo, as well as for damages and costs.

The judgment retorno is erroneous. But, though this is admitted, the counsel for the defendant in error, having produced a supplemental record shewing a remittitur of u the damages” in the circuit court, and offering to enter a similar remittitur in this court, insists that the judgment should be affirmed.

It is not material to determine whether, as was said by the supreme court of the United States in The Bank vs. Ashley, 2 Peters, 327, a remittitur in the inferior court after error brought, should be available in this court, so as to produce an affirmance at the costs of the defendant in error. Nor need we intimate, whether this court should, or could rightfully, establish such a rule as that made by the supreme court in the case in 2nd Peters (supra,) as to the effect of a remittitur in this court : because, in this case, the judgment for a return of the property has not been remitted, and no offer to remit it has been made here, or in the circuit court.

Wherefore, for the error in giving judgment (by default,) for a return of the property, the restoration of which by the officer, pursuant to his writ is proved by his official return upon it, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Ky. 165, 2 Dana 165, 1834 Ky. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrod-v-hill-kyctapp-1834.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack