Halsey v. Hurd

11 F. Cas. 306, 6 McLean 14
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan
DecidedJune 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 11 F. Cas. 306 (Halsey v. Hurd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Halsey v. Hurd, 11 F. Cas. 306, 6 McLean 14 (circtdmi 1853).

Opinion

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

A motion is made to set aside the process in this case, on the ground that it has not been properly served. The endorsement on the writ is “Copy left at defendant’s place of business.” The law requires, personal service or a copy left “at defendant’s usual place of abode.” A plea to this effect being filed, it is abandoned, and the motion is substituted.

It is objected, that defendant by filing the plea appeared in the case, and that he cannot, under such circumstances, abandon the plea. But the court held, that a plea in abatement by the party is not an appearance which constitutes a waiver of process, and also that the service was defective. Where a personal service of process is not made, the requisites of the statutes substituted for it, must be strictly complied with. The copy should have been left at the residence of the defendant, and not at his place of business.

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

Related

United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.
29 F. 17 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1886)
Rubel v. Beaver Falls Cutlery Co.
22 F. 282 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1884)
Crary v. Barber
1 Colo. 172 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1869)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 F. Cas. 306, 6 McLean 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halsey-v-hurd-circtdmi-1853.