TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jones v. Martin

Jones and Another v. Martin

Jones v. Martin, 5 Blackf. 351 (1840)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 19, 1840
Judges
Sullivan
Citations
5 Blackf. 3511840 Ind. LEXIS 60
Headnotes
A justice’s judgment in favour of Jones & Wolf against II. II. Greenup was replevied. Held, that the judgment, though irregular, was not’a nullity ; and that a scire facias against the replevin-bail might, with proper averments, be sustained.
Summary
APPEAL from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Sullivan

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

Sullivan, J.

Scire facias against the defendant as replevin-bail. The facts of this case are, that the plaintiffs, Jones & Wolf, by their partnership name, obtained a judgment by confession against H. H. Greenup before a justice of the peace, which was replevied by the defendant, Martin. Execution issued against the goods and chattels of Greenup, which was returned nulla Iona. Scire facias was then issued by the justice, requiring the defendant to appear and show cause why execution should not issue against him. It appears from the writ that on, &c., Mark. Jones and David Wolf, by the name and description of Jones & Wolf, obtained a judgment 'against Henry H. Greenup, by the name of H. H. Greenup, &c. Judgment against the defendant by. default before the justice. On appeal to the Circuit Court, the defendant had leave to file the plea of n,ul tiel record. On the trial, the plaintiff introduced .in evidence the transcript of the judgment of the justice of the peace, and offered to prove by the justice, that the parties named and described in the scire facias, were the same persons who were the parties to the original suit before him, but the Court rejected the testimony. Judgment for defendant. ■

The judgment of the justice, and all the proceedings before him in the original suit, were irregular, but the judgment is not a nullity. It may be made the foundation of other proceedings, and by proper averments a clear right in the plaintiffs to recover upon it may be shown. All the averments, necessary to show that right in the pr'esent case, are contained in the scire facias before us, and the testimony offered by the plaintiffs would have proved them/ The Court erred in rejecting the proof offered (1) .

W. M. Jenners, for the appellants.

Per Curiam,

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

Vide Barrackman v. J. M. Worthington & Co., ante, 213. —Downard et al. v. Sluder, and Codding v. Moore et al., May term, 1841. —Tanner v. Swearengen & Co., Nov., term, 1842.

How later courts describe this case

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

1844–1845: 11868–1869: 11882–1883: 11886–1887: 11906–1907: 118442026peak 1844 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hopper v. Lucas86 Ind. 43 (1882)
  2. Meyer v. Wilson76 N.E. 748 (Ind. 1906)
  3. Bridges v. Layman31 Ind. 384 (1869)
  4. McGaughey v. Woods7 N.E. 7 (Ind. 1886)
  5. Elliott v. Doughty7 Blackf. 199 (1844)

Most recent

  1. Meyer v. Wilson76 N.E. 748 (Ind. 1906)
  2. McGaughey v. Woods7 N.E. 7 (Ind. 1886)
  3. Hopper v. Lucas86 Ind. 43 (1882)
  4. Bridges v. Layman31 Ind. 384 (1869)
  5. Elliott v. Doughty7 Blackf. 199 (1844)

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