Hannah v. Ingram
James Hanna v. John N. Ingram.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
*56 Manly, J.
The power to bring an action for words is limited by the Revised Code, ch. 65, sec. 3, to six months , after the speaking of themand the question presented here is : At what time was this action commenced ? "When the first writ was issued? Or when the last?
We concur with his Honor below, that it was at the issuing of the last writ — the one from the Fall Term, 1857, to the following-spring. This latter, although denominated an alias, does not connect itself with the other, so as to make one continuous suit, a term having intervened from which no process was issued. In the case of Fullbright v. Tritt, 2 Dev. and Bat. 491, it was held that such a failure under precisely similar circumstances, worked a discontmuanoe of the suit and the issuing of a writ, purporting to be an alias, at the subsequent ■term, was the beginning of a new suit. The case of Fullbright v. Tritt is in point, and is satisfactory to us. It decides the cause before us in accordance with the opinion of the ■Judge below-, and his judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.
Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.