Garrett v. Struble
| Citation | 57 Kan. 508,46 P. 943 |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1896 |
| Docket Number | 9082 |
| Parties | W. H. GARRETT v. W. J. STRUBLE |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Decided July, 1896.
Error from Stafford District Court Hon. J. H. Bailey, Judge.
REVERSED.
Judgment reversed.
J. W Rose, for plaintiff in error.
Moseley & Dixon, for defendant in error.
OPINION
On August 11, 1887, Garrett commenced an action in the District Court of Stafford County against Struble as indorser of three promissory notes, and caused to be attached a section of land in said county to satisfy any judgment that might be obtained. The only service was by publication, and the body of the notice was as follows:
"William J. Struble, a nonresident of the state of Kansas, will take notice that the said William Garrett, plaintiff, did, on the 11th day of August, 1887, file his petition in said District Court, within and for the County of Stafford in the State of Kansas, against the said William J. Struble, defendant, and that said defendant must answer said petition filed as aforesaid, on or before the 10th day of October, 1887, or said petition will be taken as true, and judgment rendered in said action against said defendant, William J. Struble, for the sum of eight hundred and twenty-eight and 64/100 dollars, with interest thereon at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum from the 23d day of July, 1887, and for the sale of certain real property attached in this action."
A judgment quite informal in character was rendered in the case November 4, 1887, for the sum of $ 842; and it was ordered and adjudged that the real property attached, or so much thereof as necessary, be sold to pay said judgment. The finding of the Court was that said sum was due from the plaintiff to the defendant; which was evidently a clerical error. The land was sold by the Sheriff and bid in by Garrett. The sale was confirmed and a Sheriff's deed was executed to him. Garrett and wife afterward conveyed the land to Joseph R. Thomas; Thomas and wife conveyed the same to Richard Clayton; Clayton conveyed to William J. Harbert; Harbert and wife conveyed to Margaret C. Hunt, and she and her husband conveyed to William Atkenson. On March 18, 1891, Struble commenced his action against Garrett and wife and said several grantees down to Atkenson to set aside said judgment, the Sheriff's deed based thereon and the several conveyances thereafter; alleging all to be fraudulent and void as against him. Service was obtained by publication, and, at May term, 1891, Struble recovered a judgment by default against all the defendants. Afterward, at October term, 1891, Garrett made application to the Court to open up said judgment and that he be let in to defend. He was allowed to do so, and he filed an answer to which Struble replied. The action was tried at May term, 1892. The Court found that the publication notice in the case of Garrett against Struble was void because it contained neither a description of the land attached nor a statement that it belonged to the defendant Struble; and that in consequence thereof the judgment rendered in the case was void. All the other issues were found in favor of Garrett, but judgment was rendered against him.
The only question which we deem necessary to consider is whether said notice was void or not. It was complete in all respects except those pointed out by the trial court. In these it was irregular, defective and at least voidable. It could not have withstood a direct attack,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pettis v. Johnston
...that jurisdiction it was absolutely necessary to pass on the sufficiency of the constructive service by publication. In Garrett v. Struble, 57 Kan. 508, 46 P. 943, the Court held that if there was a total failure to state in the notice any material matter required by the statute, the servic......
-
Pettis v. Johnston
...v. Stiner (Kan.) 155 P. 1073; Sharp v. McColm (Kan.) 101 P. 659; Doyle v. Hays Land & Inv. Co. (Kan.) 102 P. 496; Garrett v. Struble (Kan.) 57 Kan. 508, 46 P. 943. ¶55 The statute does not expressly require the publication notice to state the amount of the mortgage debt, but merely "the nat......
-
Harpold v. Doyle
...161, 4 N.E. 278; Cruzen v. Stephens, 123 Mo. 337, 45 Am. St. 549, 27 S.W. 557; Essig v. Lower, 120 Ind. 239, 21 N.E. 1090; Garrett v. Struble, 57 Kan. 508, 46 P. 943; Bickerdike v. Allen, 157 Ill. 95, 41 N.E. 740, 29 R. A. 782; Hardy v. Beaty, 84 Tex. 562, 31 Am. St. 80, 19 S.W. 778; Wilche......
-
Ballew v. Young
...the execution, or order of sale, the sale, and the deed, must necessarily be void." This case is commented upon by the court in Garrett v. Struble, supra, in the following "In Harris v. Claflin, supra, it was held that if there is a total want of evidence upon a vital point in the affidavit......