Tilman v. Carey

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Tilman v. Carey

8 Ky. Op. 336, 1875 Ky. LEXIS 92

DecidedJanuary 28, 1875

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Ky. Op. 336 (Tilman v. Carey) 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

Tilman v. Carey, 8 Ky. Op. 336, 1875 Ky. LEXIS 92 (Ky. Ct. App. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

After a careful examination of the record in this case, we are unable to perceive any error in the proceedings in the court below that will authorize a reversal of the judgment.

It appears in the record that appellant was actually served with summons in the proceedings in Ohio, and that the court that rendered the judgment had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. The judgment must, therefore, be regarded here as conclusive of the rights of the parties. Appellant cannot go behind that judgment, and now plead matters in defense which would have constituted a defense to the original action in Ohio-. We do< not construe the judgment of the justice of the peace of Ohio as exceeding his jurisdiction. It is only for $300 and costs, which costs are the mere incident to the judgment; besides, if the judgment had exceeded [337]*337said sum, the plaintiff could remit the excess. And it is not a reversible error, i Swan & Critchf. R. S. Ohio 788.

Hawkins, for appellant. Fearsons, for appellee.

The judgment must be affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

After a careful examination of the record in this case, we are unable to perceive any error in the proceedings in the court below that will authorize a reversal of the judgment.

It appears in the record that appellant was actually served with summons in the proceedings in Ohio, and that the court that rendered the judgment had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. The judgment must, therefore, be regarded here as conclusive of the rights of the parties. Appellant cannot go behind that judgment, and now plead matters in defense which would have constituted a defense to the original action in Ohio-. We do< not construe the judgment of the justice of the peace of Ohio as exceeding his jurisdiction. It is only for $300 and costs, which costs are the mere incident to the judgment; besides, if the judgment had exceeded [337]*337said sum, the plaintiff could remit the excess. And it is not a reversible error, i Swan & Critchf. R. S. Ohio 788.

Hawkins, for appellant. Fearsons, for appellee.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Ky. Op. 336, 1875 Ky. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tilman-v-carey-kyctapp-1875.