Petalka v. Fitle
Decision Date | 12 January 1892 |
Citation | 51 N.W. 131,33 Neb. 756 |
Parties | FRANK PETALKA, APPELLANT, v. FRANK FITLE ET AL., APPELLEES |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county. Heard below before WAKELEY, J.
AFFIRMED.
Slabaugh Lane & Rush, for appellant, cited: Blanchard v Jamison, 14 Neb. 244; Ridgeway v. Bank, 30 Tenn. 523; McNeill v. Edie, 24 Kan. 108; Mastin v. Gray, 19 Id., 458; Chambers v. Mfg. Co., 16 Ark. 270; Ryan v. Boyd, 33 Kan. 778; Owens v Ranstead, 22 Ill. 161; Gerrish v. Hunt, 66 Iowa 682; Blakeslee v. Murphy, 44 Conn. 188.
Jas. W. Carr, contra, filed no brief.
This action was brought in the court below by appellant for the purpose of enjoining an alleged void judgment which the appellee Fitle had obtained against him in the justice court of E. K. Wells, a justice of the peace in and for Douglas county, and an execution issued thereon, which had been placed in the hands of Martin Eddy as constable and which he was about to levy upon the property of appellant.
The plaintiff alleges in his petition:
No answer was filed, and the cause was submitted to the court upon the petition and evidence, on consideration thereof the court found the issues in favor of the defendants and dismissed the action for want of equity.
As the defendants failed to deny the averments of the petition, every allegation of facts contained in the petition must be taken as true. Was the petition sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to equitable relief?
The transcript of the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace, which is attached to and made a part of the petition shows that on the 14th day of February, 1888, the justice issued a summons for Frank Petalka returnable February 21, 1888, at 1 o'clock P. M., which was personally served upon Petalka on the day it was issued. The transcript also states that the defendant did not appear at the hour fixed for trial, nor for one hour thereafter, when the case was called, trial had, and judgment rendered for plaintiff for $ 60 and costs. The justice court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, and it appears from the transcript of the judgment that jurisdiction was had of the person of the defendant. So no want of jurisdiction appears upon the face of the judgment. The sole defect in the record is that it contains no...
To continue reading
Request your trial