Wage Theft Cases

<p>Cas® 78 — PETITION ORDINARY —</p> <p>APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, LAW ANT) EQUITY DIVISION.</p> <p>1. In a suit on a judgment of a court of a sister State the judgment is always open to attack, no matter what the jurisdictional avermentsof the record. (Wood v. Wood, 78 Ky., 624; Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall., 84; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall., 457; Knowles v. Gas-light Co., 19 Wall., 58; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 IT. S., 350.)</p> <p>The exhibit filed with the plaintiff’s petition shows that in the-process the time for defendant to appear and plead is blank. Such a summons is a nullity. (Kilsmiller v. Kitchen, 24 Iowa, 1G3.)</p> <p>The filing of a now record with the blanks filled out ought not to-aid the matter.</p> <p>2. The plea of limitation should have been sustained. Although plaintiff’s action may have been properly commenced here, it can not be maintained if by reason of lapse of time it can not be maintained in Tennessee. The difference between commencing an action and maintaining an action is marked, and the change of expression in the-statute is evidently intentional. (Gen. Stats., chap. 71, art. 4, sec. 18; Judiciary Act of 1790.)</p> <p>3. Allowing plaintiff to testify to conversations with Father. Fortune, Father Walsh and Mrs. Mary Reynolds, all of whom are dead, was in violation of subsection 2 of section 606 of Civil Code. (Hurry v. Kline, 14 Ky. Law Rep., 330.)</p> <p>4. The admission of evidence as to the identity of Reynolds ■ with the person intended to be sued in Tennessee was prejudicial. The only question of identity is whether Reynolds was the person served with process</p> <p>5. The issue ot fact as to the Tennessee court’s jurisdiction of the subject-matter was triable by a jury under instructions from the court, and the withholding of that issue from the jury is prejudicial error.</p> <p>6. On the face- of the papers, the judgment of the Tennessee court, by a clerical misprision, is for too much.</p> <p>7. While by sec