Shockney v. Smiley

Indiana Court of Appeals

Shockney v. Smiley

41 N.E. 348, 13 Ind. App. 181, 1895 Ind. App. LEXIS 211

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 17, 1895

DocketNo. 1,745

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 N.E. 348 (Shockney v. Smiley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shockney v. Smiley, 41 N.E. 348, 13 Ind. App. 181, 1895 Ind. App. LEXIS 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Reinhard, C. J.

This action is based upon a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace. The court overruled a demurrer to the complaint, and this ruling [182]*182is assigned as error. There are no averments in the complaint which show that the justice who rendered it had jurisdiction. It is not shown that a summons was issued and served on the appellants, nor that there was any appearance by them, or either of them; nor that they, or either of them, resided in the township in which the action was brought at the time of its institution. Neither is it averred that the judgment was duly rendered. A justice’s court is one of limited jurisdiction, and nothing will be presumed in its favor. In the absence of averments showing jurisdiction the complaint is insufficient, unless it be alleged that the judgment was duly rendered. The latter expression is authorized by statute as a substitute for the averment of jurisdictional facts. Hopper v. Lucas, 86 Ind. 43.

Filed September 17, 1895.

Judgment reversed, with directions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.

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

Reinhard, C. J.

This action is based upon a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace. The court overruled a demurrer to the complaint, and this ruling [182]*182is assigned as error. There are no averments in the complaint which show that the justice who rendered it had jurisdiction. It is not shown that a summons was issued and served on the appellants, nor that there was any appearance by them, or either of them; nor that they, or either of them, resided in the township in which the action was brought at the time of its institution. Neither is it averred that the judgment was duly rendered. A justice’s court is one of limited jurisdiction, and nothing will be presumed in its favor. In the absence of averments showing jurisdiction the complaint is insufficient, unless it be alleged that the judgment was duly rendered. The latter expression is authorized by statute as a substitute for the averment of jurisdictional facts. Hopper v. Lucas, 86 Ind. 43.

Filed September 17, 1895.

Judgment reversed, with directions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 N.E. 348, 13 Ind. App. 181, 1895 Ind. App. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shockney-v-smiley-indctapp-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack