Boots v. Boots

Indiana Supreme Court

Boots v. Boots

84 Ind. 171

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1882

DocketNo. 9380

StatusPublished

This text of 84 Ind. 171 (Boots v. Boots) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boots v. Boots, 84 Ind. 171 (Ind. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Woods, J.

Complaint against three makers of a joint promissory note. The summons was returned “ not found ” .as to one of the defendants. The other two, the appellants, joined in a sworn plea of the tenor following, to wit: “ That [172]*172their co-defendant Isaac G. Boots, who is yet alive, has not been served with any summons in this case; that the sheriff has returned the summons issued herein as to the said Isaac G. Boots ‘ not found/ Wherefore,” etc.

Counsel for the appellant insist that the return of “not found ” operated to abate the action in respect to the defendant not served, and to place the case in the same position as-if no summons had issued against that party to the instrument. Bledsoe v. Irvin, 35 Ind. 293, and Bragg v. Wetzel, 5 Blackf. 95, are cited in support of the plea, but they come short of upholding it. Archer v. Heiman, 21 Ind. 29 Erwin v. Scotten, 40 Ind. 389; R. S. 1881, sections 320, 322. By the first clause of section 320, it is expressly provided that, “ If the action be against defendants jointly indebted on contract, he (the plaintiff) may proceed against the' defendants served;” and, under section 321, the party not served may be proceeded against as if “ alone liable.” As the section stood in the code of 1852, section 641, the party not served might be declared bound by the judgment rendered iii the same manner as if originally summoned. Erwin v. Scotten, supra. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the plea.

• Judgment affirmed, with'costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Woods, J.

Complaint against three makers of a joint promissory note. The summons was returned “ not found ” .as to one of the defendants. The other two, the appellants, joined in a sworn plea of the tenor following, to wit: “ That [172]*172their co-defendant Isaac G. Boots, who is yet alive, has not been served with any summons in this case; that the sheriff has returned the summons issued herein as to the said Isaac G. Boots ‘ not found/ Wherefore,” etc.

Counsel for the appellant insist that the return of “not found ” operated to abate the action in respect to the defendant not served, and to place the case in the same position as-if no summons had issued against that party to the instrument. Bledsoe v. Irvin, 35 Ind. 293, and Bragg v. Wetzel, 5 Blackf. 95, are cited in support of the plea, but they come short of upholding it. Archer v. Heiman, 21 Ind. 29 Erwin v. Scotten, 40 Ind. 389; R. S. 1881, sections 320, 322. By the first clause of section 320, it is expressly provided that, “ If the action be against defendants jointly indebted on contract, he (the plaintiff) may proceed against the' defendants served;” and, under section 321, the party not served may be proceeded against as if “ alone liable.” As the section stood in the code of 1852, section 641, the party not served might be declared bound by the judgment rendered iii the same manner as if originally summoned. Erwin v. Scotten, supra. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the plea.

• Judgment affirmed, with'costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 Ind. 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boots-v-boots-ind-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack