Martin v. Lindstrom
Citation | 75 N.W. 1038,73 Minn. 121 |
Parties | MARTIN v LINDSTROM. |
Decision Date | 28 June 1898 |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
The statute provides that the summons in an action in justice's court shall be served “by reading the same to the defendant, and delivering him a copy, if requested.” The summons was served “by reading the same to him, and delivering a copy thereof to him at his request,” except that, in the copy so delivered, the name of the plaintiff was omitted from the proper blank space in such copy. Held, a mere irregularity, which did not render the service void.
Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; James C. Tarbox, Judge.
Action by A. L. Martin against Edward Lindstrom in replevin. Verdict ordered for defendant. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Charles B. Holmes and Samuel L. Baker, for appellant.
Everett Moon, for respondent.
In an action brought in justice's court for the recovery of money, the constable returned that he served the summons on the defendant “by reading to him and delivering a copy thereof to him at his request.” The copy thus delivered to defendant was defective, in this: that the name of the plaintiff therein was omitted from the printed blank, which was in all other respects properly filled out. The defendant therein failed to appear on the return day. Judgment was entered against him. Execution was issued thereon, and levied on his property, which was sold on the execution. Thereafter he brought this action in replevin to recover possession of the property. On the trial a verdict was ordered for the defendant herein, and, from an order denying a new trial, the plaintiff herein appeals.
While such defect in the copy of the summons rendered the service of the summons irregular, in our opinion such service was not void. True, section 4966, Gen. St. 1894, provides that every summons issued by a justice of the peace This applies to the original summons issued by the justice, not to the copy, which is usually made by the constable. True, this section may still have some bearing on the question, but it is not controlling. Section 4967 provides that such a summons shall be served “by reading the same to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McKnight v. Grant
...misled into a failure to appear at all. We think, under the circumstances of this case, that the mistake was not fatal. (Martin v. Lindstrom, 73 Minn. 121, 75 N.W. 1038.) publishing the alias summons, the printers seem to have omitted the word "filed," as it appears in the following sentenc......
- Kayser v. Lindell
- Martin v. Lindstrom