Legal Opinion

Howard v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided May 5, 1838PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Motion. Case 3. Error to the Harran Circuit.

1Opinion of the Court

Judge Makshael

delivered the Opinion of the Court,

The amount collectable on the execution, for a failure to return which by a constable this motion was made, hav*nS ^een above live pounds, the motion should have been made in the Circuit Court, and a Justice of the Peace had no jurisdiction to try. it: (Stat. Law, 420-21;) Lane vs Young, (1 Litt. 40;) Abbey vs Thomas, (2 Litt. 166;) Jennings vs Jones, 4 J. J. Marshall, 217,) unless in a case arising after the passage of the act of 1835, approved February 28, 1835—Session Acts, 1834-5, ¶. 301-2.

But as the amount demanded, whether determined by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lane v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1822
  2. Abbey v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1822

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wigginton v. MossCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
  2. Pratt v. BreckinridgeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1901

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API