Case Name: Edwin W. Howard v. E. T. Kinney Co.
Court: Knox County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1906-10-12
Citations: 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 186
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edwin W. Howard v. E. T. Kinney Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 19
Pages: 186–186

Head Matter:
DEFAULT — EXECUTION.
[Knox (5th) Circuit Court,
October 12, 1906.]
Donabue, McCarty and Taggart, JJ.
Edwin W. Howard v. E. T. Kinney Co.
INJUNCTION WILL NOT LlE TO RESTRAIN EXECUTION OR DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON Cognovit Note.
Execution on a judgment, rendered on a cognovit note, will not be restrained by injunction on tbe ground that defendant did not bave an opportunity to appear and make, defense, as sucb judgment implies appearance of tbe defendant.
[For other cases in point, see 5 Cyc. Dig., “Judgments and Decrees,” §§ 379-386. — Ed.]
[Syllabus approved by tbe court.]
Error to Knox common pleas court.
Hugh Neal and L. B. Houck, for plaintiff in error.
F. V. Owen, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this case the petition shows that judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in the common pleas court of Fulton county on a cognovit note. The allegation that he did not have opportunity to appear and make a defense is not important, because the averment that it was rendered on a cognovit, implies.that his appearance was there entered under the terms of that cognovit, and that being true he was in court to all intents and purposes, and if he has a defense to that action, that is the court in which he must make application for relief. It is only where a judgment is void for want of jurisdiction that an injunction will lie to restrain a levy of an execution issued upon that judgment.. Finding and decree for defendant; petition of plaintiff dismissed at the costs of plaintiff. Remanded for execution. Motion for new trial overruled and exceptions noted.