Dutton v. Hobson

7 Kan. 196
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 7 Kan. 196 (Dutton v. Hobson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dutton v. Hobson, 7 Kan. 196 (kan 1871).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Kingman, C. J.:

The judgment in this case was on default, and no exceptions were taken. Two errors are alleged : First, the summons was not served before the return-day: Second, the action was against L. J. Dutton ; the summons is returned served on L. A. Dutton.

The summons was issued on the 26th day of March, to the sheriff of Miami county, and was served on the 5th day of April. This was the return-day, while the statute limits the service to any time before the return-day.” §64, civil code. The statute is positive. ¥e cannot construe it away, nor enlarge it. In Meisse v. McCoy’s Adm’r, 17 Ohio St., 229, such a service was held voidable, an irregularity that could be corrected on motion, or waived by answer. In our opinion it is a defect that can be corrected on error. It is an error that affects the substantial rights of the defendant, as it gives him one less day to answer than the law allows. It is not a defect that makes the judgment void; and if a party permits it to go unchallenged till he has lost the right to correct it, by reason of the lapse of time, the judgment would be binding on him.

The second objection is not tenable when presented for the first time on error. If it could. be taken advan[199]*199tage of at all, it must be in the court below. . Such was always the law. 1 Chitty’s PL, 244, 248. We are not to be understood as deciding that there is any defect existing. If the right party was,served with the summons, the most that could be done, would be to allow the sheriff to amend. The law knows but 'one Christian name in its proceedings; and if there are two of that name, it must be made to appear on issues properly made up.

For the. error first alleged, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Daley v. Board of Police Commissioners of East Hartford
54 A.2d 501 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1947)
Farmers Coöperative Grain, Live Stock & Mercantile Ass'n v. Hed
251 P. 1090 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1927)
State ex rel. Blake v. Dunn
235 P. 132 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1925)
Finn v. Howard
94 P. 801 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1908)
Havens v. Drake
43 Kan. 484 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1890)
Essig v. Lower
21 N.E. 1090 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
Bassett v. Mitchell
40 Kan. 549 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1889)
Cross v. Knox
32 Kan. 725 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1884)
Dougherty v. Porter
18 Kan. 206 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1877)
Nelson v. Becker
14 Kan. 509 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1875)
Simcock v. First National Bank
14 Kan. 529 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1875)
Sawyer v. Bryson
10 Kan. 199 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Kan. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dutton-v-hobson-kan-1871.