Winslow v. Talbot

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Winslow v. Talbot

29 Ky. 641, 6 J.J. Marsh. 641, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 292

DecidedOctober 31, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ky. 641 (Winslow v. Talbot) 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

Winslow v. Talbot, 29 Ky. 641, 6 J.J. Marsh. 641, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 292 (Ky. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the eourt.

' This writ of error is prosecuted to reVerse a judgment of the circuit court of Franklin, quashing a fee bill issued by Winslow, as clerk of the Gallatin circuit court, against Talbot, and fining the clerk for erroneous charges. The record does not shew either that Winslow had notice of the proceeding, or that he appeared in court, or that Talbot resided in Franklin county.

It may be at least questionable whether such a judgment, without notice or appearance waiving notice, should be regarded as binding. But, at all events,as the act of Assembly, (I. Digest 663) gives a special jurisdiction, in such cases, only to the circuit court of the county in which the party paying the fee bill shall reside, the record should shew the fact which gives to the court cognizance; (see Tevis vs. Craig et al. VI. Monroe 7.)

Wherefore, as the record in this case does not shew that Talbot resided in Franklin.county, the judgment must be reversed at his costs.

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

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the eourt.

' This writ of error is prosecuted to reVerse a judgment of the circuit court of Franklin, quashing a fee bill issued by Winslow, as clerk of the Gallatin circuit court, against Talbot, and fining the clerk for erroneous charges. The record does not shew either that Winslow had notice of the proceeding, or that he appeared in court, or that Talbot resided in Franklin county.

It may be at least questionable whether such a judgment, without notice or appearance waiving notice, should be regarded as binding. But, at all events,as the act of Assembly, (I. Digest 663) gives a special jurisdiction, in such cases, only to the circuit court of the county in which the party paying the fee bill shall reside, the record should shew the fact which gives to the court cognizance; (see Tevis vs. Craig et al. VI. Monroe 7.)

Wherefore, as the record in this case does not shew that Talbot resided in Franklin.county, the judgment must be reversed at his costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ky. 641, 6 J.J. Marsh. 641, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winslow-v-talbot-kyctapp-1831.