Case Name: Nicholas Copple et al. v. Howard Lee
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1881-04-22
Citations: 1 Ind. L. Rep. 184
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nicholas Copple et al. v. Howard Lee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Law Reporter
Volume: 1
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
Nicholas Copple et al. v. Howard Lee.
Venue in Replevin.—Such action may be brought in any township of the county wherein the defendant resides. (Cases overruled.)
Filed April 22, 1881.
Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court.
Alonzo Blair, E. P. Ferris and W. W. Spencer, for appellants,
cited Jooelyn v. Barritt, 18 Ind. 128; Beddinger v. Jocelyn, 18 Ind. 326; Test v. Small, 21 Ind. 127; Cook’s Adm’r v. Gibson, 21 Ind. 303, as to venue in replevin; Beard v. Beard, 30 Ind. 171; Julian v. Beall, 34 Ind. 372, as to obligation of lower court to follow the rule laid down by the Supreme Court; Nesbit v. Beavy, 37 Ind. 300; Smith v. Jeffries, 25 Ind. 376; Stout v. Chapman, 29 Ind. 142, as to waiver of objection to personal jurisdiction.
E. K. Adams, for appellee,
cited Jocelyn v. Barritt, 18 Ind. 128, as to taking and detention of personal property being a trespass; also Beddinger’s Adm’r v. Jocelyn, 18 Ind. 325; Test v. Small, distinguished on the point of jurisdiction; Cook, Adm’r. v. Gibson, 21 Ind. 203, as to venue; also Nesbit v. Bong, 27 Ind. 301, claiming that action must be brought in the township where the act was done or the defendant resides; 14 Ind. 89; 17 Ind. 236; 16 Ind. 275, as io former pleas in abatement, and Thompson v. Greenwood, as to present practice thereon, as also Band v. Wagner, 28 Ind. 462; Sweet v. Tuttle, 10 How. Pr. 40; Mayhew v. Robinson, 10 How. Pr. 162; 14 N. Y. 465; 5 Sand. 210, and cases above as to waiver of objection to personal jurisdiction.

Opinion:
Opinion of the court by
Mr. Justice Woods.
The only question presented is whether an action for the wrongful taking and detention of personal property, when brought before a justice of the peace, must be commenced in the township in which the defendant resides, or that in which the property was unlawfully taken and detained, or may it be brought before any justice of the county in which the defendant resides ?
There is some conflict in the decisions and dicta of this court; see Jocelyn v. Barritt, 18 Ind. 128; Beddinger's adm'r v. Jocelyn, 18 Ind. 325; Test v. Small, 21 Ind. 127; Nesbit v. Long, 37 Ind. 300.
The section of the law (2 Rev. Stat., 1876, p. 628, sec. 71) which confers jurisdiction in such cases upon justices of the peace authorizes the justice before whom the complaint shall be filed, to issue his writ " to some constable of the countyand it having been held in Beddinger's adm'r v. Jocelyn, and Test v. Small, supra, that the action may be commenced in any township of the county in which (county) the defendant resides, we adhere to the doctrine of those cases, overruling the others so far as inconsistent.
Judgment reversed with costs, and with instruction to sustain the demurrer to the answer in abatement.