TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harrod v. Dismore

Harrod v. Dismore, Sheriff

Harrod v. Dismore, 26 N.E. 1072 (Ind. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 10, 1891
Docket
No. 14,853
Judges
Elliott
Citations
26 N.E. 1072127 Ind. 3381891 Ind. LEXIS 209
Headnotes
Judgment. — Collateral Attach. — A judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction against a defendant for violating the statute prohibiting the obstruction of public ditches can not be collaterally attacked.
Summary
From the Scott 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 — Elliott

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

Elliott, J.

The appellant seeks by his complaint to enjoin the collection of a judgment rendered against him for violating the statute prohibiting the obstruction of public ditches.

The contention of counsel is that the statute requires that the defendant in such a prosecution shall be fined ten dollars, and that, as the fine imposed was only five dollars, the judgment is void. This contention can not prevail. The court had general jurisdiction of the subject, and its judgment, even if erroneous, can not be collaterally assailed. The error complained of would not avail in a direct attack, since the imposition of a less fine than the law requires in a case where the only punishment is a fine, is not prejudicial to the defendant. Nichols v. State, post, p. 406.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1892: 11896: 11897: 11901: 11927: 11929: 118922026peak 1892 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hunnicutt v. Frauhiger158 N.E. 572 (Ind. 1927)
  2. Mates v. State165 N.E. 316 (Ind. 1929)
  3. Peters v. Koepke59 N.E. 33 (Ind. 1901)
  4. Turner v. Conkey17 L.R.A. 509 (Ind. 1892)
  5. State v. Arnold42 N.E. 1095 (Ind. 1896)
  6. Ballard v. City of Chicago69 Ill. App. 638 (1897)

Most recent

  1. Mates v. State165 N.E. 316 (Ind. 1929)
  2. Hunnicutt v. Frauhiger158 N.E. 572 (Ind. 1927)
  3. Peters v. Koepke59 N.E. 33 (Ind. 1901)
  4. Ballard v. City of Chicago69 Ill. App. 638 (1897)
  5. State v. Arnold42 N.E. 1095 (Ind. 1896)
  6. Turner v. Conkey17 L.R.A. 509 (Ind. 1892)

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