Howard v. E. T. Kinney Co.

Knox County Circuit Court

Howard v. E. T. Kinney Co.

19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 186, 8 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 568, 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 228

DecidedOctober 12, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 186 (Howard v. E. T. Kinney Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Knox County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Howard v. E. T. Kinney Co., 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 186, 8 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 568, 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 228 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case the petition shows that judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in the common pleas court of Fulton county on a cognovit note. The allegation that he did not have opportunity to appear and make a defense is not important, because the averment that it was rendered on a cognovit, implies.that his appearance was there entered under the terms of that cognovit, and that being true he was in court to all intents and purposes, and if he has a defense to that action, that is the court in which he must make application for relief. It is only where a judgment is void for want of jurisdiction that an injunction will lie to restrain a levy of an execution issued upon that judgment.. Finding and decree for defendant; petition of plaintiff dismissed at the costs of plaintiff. Remanded for execution. Motion for new trial overruled and exceptions noted.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case the petition shows that judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in the common pleas court of Fulton county on a cognovit note. The allegation that he did not have opportunity to appear and make a defense is not important, because the averment that it was rendered on a cognovit, implies.that his appearance was there entered under the terms of that cognovit, and that being true he was in court to all intents and purposes, and if he has a defense to that action, that is the court in which he must make application for relief. It is only where a judgment is void for want of jurisdiction that an injunction will lie to restrain a levy of an execution issued upon that judgment.. Finding and decree for defendant; petition of plaintiff dismissed at the costs of plaintiff. Remanded for execution. Motion for new trial overruled and exceptions noted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 186, 8 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 568, 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-e-t-kinney-co-ohcirctknox-1906.