October 10, 2012

Bishop v. Jackson, Laurel, 1906


Click here for a list of my other Pulaski/Rockcastle/Laurel County KY articles




91 S.W. 263; 1906 Ky. LEXIS 357; 28 Ky. L. Rptr. 1136

March 6, 1906, Decided

Appeal from Circuit Court, Laurel County.
Action by G. D. Jackson against Walter H. Bishop. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.


COUNSEL: S. C. Hardin, for appellant.

G. G. Brock and W. L. Brown, for appellee.




 [*263]  CARROLL, C. The appellee, G. D. Jackson, instituted this action in the Laurel circuit court against the appellant, Walter H. Bishop, on a promissory note executed by appellant in Middlesboro, Ky., in October, 1895. Summons was issued and executed on appellant in Laurel county. When the case came on for trial, Mr. Sam C. Hardin, attorney for the appellant filed his affidavit, setting out that the appellee, Jackson, was at the commencement of the action and for a number of years prior thereto a resident of the state of Florida, and that the appellant, Bishop, was at the commencement of the action and for several years prior thereto a resident of the state of Florida; that appellant was temporarily in Laurel county, Ky., when this action was instituted and the process issued and executed on him; and that he did not, at the time the action was filed or when the process was served, reside in the state of Kentucky or own any property of any kind in Laurel  [**2] county or in this state; and he moved the court to quash the summons and dismiss the action, because the court had no jurisdiction of appellant or of the case. No other defense was interposed. The court overruled the motion and rendered judgment for the amount of the debt.

The appellant insists that the motion to quash the summons for the reasons stated should have been sustained. Section 78 of  [*264]  the Civil Code of Practice provides that an action like this "may be brought in any county in which the defendant or in which one of several defendants who may be properly joined as such in an action resides or is summoned." There is no provision in the Code limiting the jurisdiction of transitory actions like this to citizens of this state. The only requirement is that the action shall be brought in the county in which the defendant resides or is summoned. The fact that the plaintiff in the action resided in a foreign state does not prevent him instituting an action in any county in this state against a defendant, whether the defendant lives in this state or not. If the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action and of the person of the defendant by the execution upon him of  [**3] process in the county in which the action is instituted, it may be maintained. This is the only question in the record for the consideration of the court, and it does not present any reason why the judgment of the lower court should not be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...