Goodenough, Judge Police Ct., v. Ky. Purchasing Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
Writing for the CourtJudge Thomas
Citation241 Ky. 744
PartiesGoodenough, Judge of Police Court, v. Kentucky Purchasing Company et al.
Decision Date13 November 1931
241 Ky. 744
Goodenough, Judge of Police Court,
v.
Kentucky Purchasing Company et al.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
Decided November 13, 1931.

1. Courts. — On appeal from circuit court judgment granting prohibition, jurisdiction of Court of Appeals is purely appellate (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 479; Criminal Code of Practice, sec. 25; Constitution, sec. 110).

In such case, only jurisdiction possessed by Court of Appeals is exclusively appellate and not original, and, if circuit judge who rendered judgment appealed from had no authority to entertain petition, Court of Appeals would be likewise circumscribed in its authority as such appellate court. If, on such appeal, it is found that circuit court had no jurisdiction of proceedings, appellate court will not pass on merits, but reverse judgment on ground that circuit court had no right to adjudicate merits.

2. Prohibition. — Circuit court held without jurisdiction to prohibit police judge from hearing and determining matters within his jurisdiction, though erroneously exercised (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 479; Criminal Code of Practice, secs. 25, 71a-7; Ky. Stats., sec. 3147; Constitution, sec. 110).

In such case, circuit court had no jurisdiction to entertain application for prohibition, notwithstanding police judge was about erroneously to exercise that jurisdiction, since in that

Page 745

event remedy of petitioners would be original application to Court of Appeals and not by application to circuit court.

3. Criminal Law. — Police judge, having jurisdiction, had right to adjudicate on all questions growing out of jurisdiction (Criminal Code of Practice, sec. 71a-7; Ky. Stats., sec. 3147).

4. Criminal Law. — On charge of common-law conspiracy police judge had only examining jurisdiction (Criminal Code of Practice, sec. 71a-7; Ky. Stats., sec. 3147).

Police judge had jurisdiction to sit as examining court and to hear and determine facts at examining trial of defendants, and to determine whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that defendants or either of them were probably guilty, and, if so, to make such orders and to enter such judgments as law permitted him to do as such examining court.

5. Prohibition. — Circuit court held without jurisdiction to prohibit police judge from proceeding on common-law conspiracy charge, even if facts contained in affidavit before police judge were insufficient to charge crime; police judge having examining jurisdiction (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 479; Criminal Code of Practice, secs. 25, 71a-7; Ky. Stats., sec. 3147).

Circuit court judge's conclusion that facts as contained in affidavit filed before police judge were insufficient to lodge criminal charge against accused transgressed limits of circuit court's jurisdiction, since it proceeded to adjudicate on facts exclusively within province of police judge; he having jurisdiction of subject-matter.

6. Prohibition. — Circuit courts have prohibitive jurisdiction against inferior courts only where latter are acting without jurisdiction (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 479; Criminal Code of Practice, sec. 25).

7. Courts. — If inferior courts are acting within jurisdiction, but erroneously, followed by great and irreparable injury to litigant, with no adequate remedy for relief, circuit court has no jurisdiction to prohibit action; such jurisdiction being exclusively in Court of Appeals (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 479; Criminal Code of Practice, sec. 25; Constitution, sec. 110).

8. Courts. — Circuit court has exclusive original jurisdiction to prohibit inferior court from acting without jurisdiction, not followed by great and irreparable injury with no adequate remedy (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 479; Criminal Code of Practice, sec. 25; Constitution, sec. 110).

9. Courts. — Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to prohibit circuit courts from acting without jurisdiction, if producing great and irreparable injury to litigant with no adequate remedy for relief Constitution, sec. 110).

Page 746

10. Courts. — Court having jurisdiction of subject-matter has right to determine whether developed facts authorize particular judgment rendered.

Appeal from Kenton Circuit Court.

DANIEL W. DAVIES, LAWRENCE J. DISKIN and RALPH RICH for appellant.

WILLIAM J. DUPREE for appellee.

Frank S. Graydon, Maxwell & Ramsey, J.P. Hamilton, H.T. Lively, Ashby M. Warren, J.J. Donohue, Gregory W. Hughes, John E. Shepard, Humphrey, Crawford & Middleton, and Anna Hubbuch Settle, amici curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE THOMAS.


Reversing.

J.H. Taylor, a resident of Atlanta, Ga., conducts a loan business in the city of Covington under the trade-name of "Kentucky Purchasing Company," and two of the local managers and operatives of that business are L.B. Hines and R.C. Reiger. The appellant and defendant below, Joseph P. Goodenough, was and is the duly elected, qualified, and acting police judge of the city of Covington. On September 15, 1930, there was filed with defendant, as police judge of the city of Covington, an affidavit charging Taylor and his two local managers with the common-law offense of criminal conspiracy, growing out of the way and manner that the business of the purchasing agency was managed and conducted, and which the affidavit set out with great detail, and, if true, was in violation of law in several particulars, but which, for reasons hereinafter appearing, we do not deem it necessary to set forth in this opinion. At the same time, or closely following it, an affidavit was filed before defendant to procure a search warrant to search the premises wherein the business of the purchasing agency was conducted to obtain evidence which the applicant for the warrant averred would establish the guilt of the crime charged in the affidavit filed before defendant. The latter issued a warrant of arrest for Taylor and his local managers, and also issued the search warrant asked for, and it was executed as directed therein. The two local managers were also arrested, but Taylor, being a nonresident, was not arrested.

Taylor, with his two local managers, as plaintiffs below, then filed his action in the Kenton circuit court against the appellant and defendant below, as such police judge seeking a writ of prohibition against him to

Page 747

prevent him from investigating the charge preferred against plaintiffs, and to also prohibit him from further proceeding under the search warrant and from considering any of the evidence that was revealed by its execution, all upon the alleged ground that he was proceeding and about to proceed, without jurisdiction. To more fully present the relief sought by the action, we insert the prayer of the petition, which says:

"Wherefore, plaintiffs pray that this court will issue its writ of prohibition or order addressed to the Police Court of the city of Covington, Hon. Joseph E. Goodenough, Judge of the said Court, prohibiting it from proceeding further in the matter of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Security Trust Co. v. Swope, Judge
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 10 Junio 1938
    ...404; Litteral v. Woods, 223 Ky. 582, 4 S.W. (2d) 395; Osborn v. Wolfford, 239 Ky. 470, 39 S.W. (2d) 672; Goodenough v. Purchasing Company, 241 Ky. 744, 45 S.W. (2d) 451; Henneberger Co.'s Assignee v. Price, 252 Ky. 402, 67 S.W. (2d) 471; Union Trading Company v. Hubbard, 252 Ky. 518, 67 S.W......
  • Commonwealth v. Donoghue
    • United States
    • Kentucky Supreme Court
    • 23 Junio 1933
    ...to by the invidious and iniquitous term of "loan sharks". The case is an echo of Goodenough, Judge, v. Kentucky Purchasing Company, 241 Ky. 744, 45 S.W. (2d) 451. We shall abridge the indictment by omitting terms and words usually regarded as essential to technical sufficiency. The instrume......
2 cases
  • Security Trust Co. v. Swope, Judge
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 10 Junio 1938
    ...404; Litteral v. Woods, 223 Ky. 582, 4 S.W. (2d) 395; Osborn v. Wolfford, 239 Ky. 470, 39 S.W. (2d) 672; Goodenough v. Purchasing Company, 241 Ky. 744, 45 S.W. (2d) 451; Henneberger Co.'s Assignee v. Price, 252 Ky. 402, 67 S.W. (2d) 471; Union Trading Company v. Hubbard, 252 Ky. 518, 67 S.W......
  • Commonwealth v. Donoghue
    • United States
    • Kentucky Supreme Court
    • 23 Junio 1933
    ...to by the invidious and iniquitous term of "loan sharks". The case is an echo of Goodenough, Judge, v. Kentucky Purchasing Company, 241 Ky. 744, 45 S.W. (2d) 451. We shall abridge the indictment by omitting terms and words usually regarded as essential to technical sufficiency. The instrume......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT