Hill v. Kling
Ohio Supreme Court
This was a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Rich-land county, adjourned here for decision from that county. The case was this: On October 10, 1828, J. Kling recovered a judgment against S. H. Hill, before Justice Gardner, in Richland county, for eighty dollars and fifty-four cents and costs.
Read the full summary
This was a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Rich-land county, adjourned here for decision from that county. The case was this: On October 10, 1828, J. Kling recovered a judgment against S. H. Hill, before Justice Gardner, in Richland county, for eighty dollars and fifty-four cents and costs. Upon this judgment execution issued on the 11th of October, which was returned on the 16th of the same month, that there was no goods whereon to levy; but it is suggested that the defendant was possessed of lands and tenements within this county. Upon this suggestion, on the same October…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
The plaintiff in error insists : 1. That the 'constable’s return, having been made a short time after the execution came into his hands, is void.
2. That the court below erred in rendering a judgment at the -term to which the scire facias was returnable.
5. That it was error to render judgment without rule or plea.
The third and fourth errors appear to have no foundation in fact; the record containing, with sufficient certainty, the suggestion that the judgment debtor was possessed of lands and tenements.
1. This question depends upon different principles from that which might arise…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gardner v. HosmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Hendricks v. Commercial InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Collins v. CookSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1809
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kirkman v. VanlierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844