Heinemann v. Pier
Citation | 85 N.W. 646,110 Wis. 185 |
Parties | HEINEMANN v. PIER. |
Decision Date | 09 April 1901 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Iron county; John K. Parish, Judge.
Ejectment by Sigmund Heinemann against Kate Pier. From an order denying her motion to set aside a default judgment and dismiss the complaint, defendant appeals. Reversed.
This is an action of ejectment. The summons and complaint were attempted to be served by a private person upon the 7th of September, 1898, by delivering the same to the defendant's daughter, Mrs. John H. Roemer. The following affidavit of service was made, and constitutes the only proof of such service: On the 20th of September, 1898, the defendant appeared specially for the purpose of moving to dismiss only, and made a motion to dismiss the action for want of service of the summons on the defendant, which motion was based upon affidavits of the defendant and of Caroline H. Roemer, showing that no personal service was ever made upon the defendant, and that Caroline H. Roemer, who is a daughter of the defendant, with whom the summons and complaint were left, was a married woman at the time, and the wife of John H. Roemer, and was a member of the family of John H. Roemer, and not a member of the defendant's family. The motion was denied, and exception taken. The defendant made no further appearance in the action, and judgment by default was entered for the plaintiff June 22, 1899. June 13, 1900, the defendant again appeared specially, and moved to set aside judgment and dismiss the complaint, because no service of the summons had ever been made; said motion being based upon additional affidavits showing more fully that Caroline H. Roemer was not a member of the family of the defendant at the time of the alleged service. This motion was denied, and the defendant appeals from the judgment and from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wuchter v. Pizzutti
...injured anybody. A provision of law for service that leaves open such a clear opportunity for the commission of fraud (Heinemann v. Pier, 110 Wis. 185, 85 N. W. 646) or injustice is not a reasonable provision, and in the case supposed would certainly be depriving a defendant of his property......
- Foohs v. Bilby
-
Hirsch Bros. & Co. v. R. E. Kennington Co
... ... A provision of ... law for service that leaves open such a clear opportunity ... for the commission of fraud (Heinemann v. Pier, 110 Wis ... 185, 85 N.W. 646) or injustice is not a reasonable ... provision, and in the case supposed would certainly be ... depriving ... ...
-
Grote v. Rogers, 28.
...injured anybody. A provision of law for service that leaves open such a clear opportunity for the commission of fraud (Heinemann v. Pier, 110 Wis. 185, 85 N. W. 646) or injustice is not a reasonable provision, and in the case supposed would certainly be depriving a defendant of his property......