Rodes v. Hays

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Rodes v. Hays

30 Ky. 593, 7 J.J. Marsh. 593, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 153

DecidedOctober 22, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Ky. 593 (Rodes v. Hays) 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

Rodes v. Hays, 30 Ky. 593, 7 J.J. Marsh. 593, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 153 (Ky. Ct. App. 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of (he Court.

At the instance of William Hays, the defendant in error, the circuit judge of Favette gave judgment in his favor against the plaintiff in error, as clerk of the county court of said county, for the amount of a fee hill exhibited by the defendant, and purporting to have been issued by the plain-.¡A? 1 1 a j r

There seems to have been no appearance by the plaintiff in error until after the judge had taken time and was in the act of rendering judgment. We cannot, therefore, presume that any fact was proved or admitted after such appearance. Consequently, so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the principle settled in Tevis vs. Craig, VI Mon. 7, must he decisive This record does not shew that the defendant in error resided in Fayette county.

Wherefore, for want of record evidence of a fact," indispensable to the jurisdiction of the circuit judge, the judgment is reversed.

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

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of (he Court.

At the instance of William Hays, the defendant in error, the circuit judge of Favette gave judgment in his favor against the plaintiff in error, as clerk of the county court of said county, for the amount of a fee hill exhibited by the defendant, and purporting to have been issued by the plain-.¡A? 1 1 a j r

There seems to have been no appearance by the plaintiff in error until after the judge had taken time and was in the act of rendering judgment. We cannot, therefore, presume that any fact was proved or admitted after such appearance. Consequently, so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the principle settled in Tevis vs. Craig, VI Mon. 7, must he decisive This record does not shew that the defendant in error resided in Fayette county.

Wherefore, for want of record evidence of a fact," indispensable to the jurisdiction of the circuit judge, the judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Ky. 593, 7 J.J. Marsh. 593, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodes-v-hays-kyctapp-1832.