Breckinridge v. Quertemus
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Traverse, From the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. statement of th$ casm- A forcible entry, and aforcible'ietainer, are distinct offences.— And (as is well settled,) if the warrant charge but one, unless the def’t is found guilty of that, there can be no judg’t for restitution. But, proceedings of this sortniust be construed liberally; and objections to mere forms are waived by a traverse.
Read the full summary
Traverse, From the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. statement of th$ casm- A forcible entry, and aforcible'ietainer, are distinct offences.— And (as is well settled,) if the warrant charge but one, unless the def’t is found guilty of that, there can be no judg’t for restitution. But, proceedings of this sortniust be construed liberally; and objections to mere forms are waived by a traverse. Where the writ Sjbdl'&ed n forcible ehtry of 'detainer, 'and' the def’t was’’found guilty of both',' the verdict was held to be sufficient. Held that finding the defendant ‘‘guilty of the forcible entry…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Marshall
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Breckinridge sued out a warrant against Quertenius, complaining that “he did on the-r day of-forcibly enter on a tract of land,” &c. The jury in the country found the defendant “guilty of the forcible entry or detainer complained qf in this warrant;” and qn this verdict, a judgment cf restitution was rendered by the magistrate before whom the inquisition was held.
Quertemus traversed the inquisition, and issue having been joined in the Circuit Court, on its truth, the jury there found “the inquisition true,” and judgment of restitution was again…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Newsom v. DamronCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1946