Howard v. E. T. Kinney Co.

19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 186, 8 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 568, 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 228
Knox County Circuit Court·Decided October 12, 1906·Published

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

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).

19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 186 (Howard v. E. T. Kinney Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.