TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Court of Common Pleas v. Sergeant

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OF PIKE COUNTY v. SERGEANT AND CHENOWITH, SURVIVOR OF CHENOWITH

Court of Common Pleas v. Sergeant, 1 Wright 482 (1834)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1834
Judges
Collett, Wright
Citations
1 Wright 4821 Ohio Ch. 482
Headnotes
Pleading — inducement—innuendo—jurisdiction where the court is a party. Where the right of action depends upon extrinsic matter, the declaration discloses no title to recover unless such matter he introduced by way of inducement; the allusion to it by way of innuendo is not sufficient. Quere, if the Court of Common Pleas can hold jurisdiction of a case in which they are parties?
Summary
Debt. The writ was issued in the Court of Common Pleas, and returned served as to Chenowith, and not found as to Sergeant. The declaration is upon a penal.bond for $4,000, dated the lYth April, 1835, and conditioned that Sergeant should perform his duties as director of the town of Piketon. The breaches assigned are, the neglect of duty, and the receipt of money which had not been paid over. The defendant demurred generally.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BY THE COURT.

The declaration lays no inducement to the introduction of the bond and breach. The condition of the bond recites that he was appointed a director, the pleader adds in the declaration (meaning of the town of Pihetoii), as an innuendo is inserted in a count in slander. The rule is, that where the right of action depends upon extrinsic matter, that matter must be shown by aver-*ment as inducement; this is not done in the case [483 before us. The innuendo does not operate as an averment, or supply its place. The declaration is therefore bad. There is difficulty as to the Common Pleas holding jurisdiction of a casein which it is a party — one cannot sit as a judge in his own case.

We give leave to amend, on payment of costs, to supply the averment and reserve the case upon the other points to bank.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1870–1871: 118702026peak 1870 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Taylor v. Taylor63 Pa. 481 (1870)

Most recent

  1. Taylor v. Taylor63 Pa. 481 (1870)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list