Martin v. McKinney

2 Ky. 321, 1 Sneed 321, 1804 Ky. LEXIS 16
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMay 23, 1804
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 2 Ky. 321 (Martin v. McKinney) 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
Martin v. McKinney, 2 Ky. 321, 1 Sneed 321, 1804 Ky. LEXIS 16 (Ky. Ct. App. 1804).

Opinion

The judgment of the county court does not state whether the discontinuance of the license granted to Martin for keeping a ferry over the Ohio river at Maysvilleywas for his neglecting to furnish the necessary boats, the number of hands to attend it required by the court, within the time prescribed by law, or that the same had been wholly disused and unfrequented for the space of two years, some one of which causes should appear upon the face of their proceedings. This being a law which authorizes the county court to interfere with and deprive citizens of their rights and property in a summary way, it should appear from the record of their proceedings that they acted within their power and authority, and therefore' nothing ought to be presumed to support their proceedings. Nor can this case be assimilated to the proceedings of a court of unlimited jurisdiction, in correcting the acts of ministerial officers, who, in carrying judgments into execution, either willfully or negligently abuse the process of the court. In the latter case, every presumption is to be indulged in support of the unlimited jurisdiction, because it is derived from common law; in the former, no such presumption is permitted, because the authority is given by statute, which must be strictly and substantially pursued.

Therefore, it is considered by the court, that the judgment aforesaid be reversed, annulled, and set aside, and that the plaintiff recover of the defendant his costs by him about his suit in this behalf expended, which is ordered to be certified to the said’ court.

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

Related

Jenkins v. Huntsinger
125 P.2d 327 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1942)
Abdallah v. Weil
79 S.W.2d 284 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1935)
Macklin v. Dunn
130 Tenn. 342 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1914)
Love v. Southern Railway Co.
55 L.R.A. 471 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1901)
Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Freeman
109 F. 847 (Sixth Circuit, 1901)
Iron & Coal Co. v. Broyles
95 Tenn. 612 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1895)
Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Wyler
158 U.S. 285 (Supreme Court, 1895)
Key v. Snow
90 Tenn. 663 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1891)
Powell v. Riley
83 Tenn. 153 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1885)
Burgie v. Parks
79 Tenn. 84 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1883)
Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. Foster
78 Tenn. 351 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1882)
Augusta Manufacturing Co. v. Vertrees
72 Tenn. 75 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1879)
East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad v. Parker
2 Shan. Cas. 80 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1876)
Bright v. Ford
58 Tenn. 252 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1872)
Flatley v. Memphis & Charleston Railroad
56 Tenn. 230 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1872)
King v. Breeden
42 Tenn. 455 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1865)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Ky. 321, 1 Sneed 321, 1804 Ky. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-mckinney-kyctapp-1804.