Blinn v. Rickett
Ohio Circuit Courts
Error to Lorain common pleas court. There was a sufficient seizure and possession of enough of the defendant’s property to have given the magistrate jurisdiction to render judgment on the plaintiff’s claim. Reich v. Building Go. 11 Dec. 418 (8 N. P. 234); Davis v. Lewis, 8 Circ.
Read the full summary
Error to Lorain common pleas court. There was a sufficient seizure and possession of enough of the defendant’s property to have given the magistrate jurisdiction to render judgment on the plaintiff’s claim. Reich v. Building Go. 11 Dec. 418 (8 N. P. 234); Davis v. Lewis, 8 Circ. Dee. 772 (16 R. 138); Leonard v. Lederer, 8 Dee. 711; Whitman v. Keith, 18 Ohio St. 134. Defendant was in court by his motion to discharge the attachment and the justice should have retained the case for hearing on its merits —after granting defendant’s motion. Long v. Newhouse, 57 Ohio St. 348 [49 N. E. Rep. 79];…
1Opinion of the Court
MARVIN, J. (Orally.)
The case of J. G. Blinn v. Claude M. Rickett, is a proceeding in error. The ease was this: Plaintiff brought a suit against Rickett, before a justice of the peace, and filed his affidavit for an attachment; an attachment was issued and allowed. No personal service was had upon Rickett, and Rickett was not in court, except as he was brought in by the attachment, unless he is to be held to have made a voluntary appearance by facts whicla will be stated.
Rickett, the defendant, filed this motion before the justice of the peace:
“J. G. Blinn, plaintiff, v. Claude M. Rickett,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reynolds v. FlemingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- Green v. GreenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889