Breckinridge v. Coleman
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Error to the Fayette Circuit. Error co-ram VOBIS. Case 91. Case stated. Fact»1 ih’ the «ase; The1 statu te of 1803, (2 Sl.La.w, 1555,)' requiring notice- of appli«ation- for writs of error cm arm vobis, does not apply to a case where the object of the -writ is to-contest the validity of thejudgment, nor is it necessary in such ease to produce a copy of the bond and. execution..
Read the full summary
Error to the Fayette Circuit. Error co-ram VOBIS. Case 91. Case stated. Fact»1 ih’ the «ase; The1 statu te of 1803, (2 Sl.La.w, 1555,)' requiring notice- of appli«ation- for writs of error cm arm vobis, does not apply to a case where the object of the -writ is to-contest the validity of thejudgment, nor is it necessary in such ease to produce a copy of the bond and. execution.. Justices of the Peace in Kentucky, in virtue of llieir common jurisdiction,have power to award writs of error co-ram vobis whenever that is the appropriate remedy to eoneet errors in their own courts independently of…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Bheck
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1843, Breckinridge recovered a judgment upon an account, before a Justice of the Peace, for >148 and costs, against Eliza B. Coleman, then the wife of James Coleman. An execution having issued thereon, the debt was replevied, with Samuel Coleman as security. A bill in chancery was subsequently filed by Mrs. Coleman and her husband and the surety in the replevin bond, and an injunction obtained restraining the collection of the judgment. It was alledged in the bill, that the account upon *332which' íhe judgment was rendered, was fabricated aatf…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gibson v. PollockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Turner v. GillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899