Hodges v. Hodges

71 Am. Dec. 388, 6 Iowa 78, 1858 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 178
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided April 15, 1858·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Stockton, J.

— It is urged that the decree rendered by the district court is invalid, for the reason that there was no sufficient return of the service of the original notice upon defendant. The return does not state the manner of the service, as required by sec. 1723, of the Code. It is the duty of the person serving the notice to set forth, in his return all the acts by him done, in order that the proper [79] tribunal may judge of their sufficiency. The law does not permit him to judge of the legality or sufficiency of the service. A return that the notice was served, or even duly served, is insufficient. The manner of service must be shown. The court had no right to proceed against the defendant, unless it properly appeared that she was served with notice of the action. Dills v. Chambers, 2 G. Greene, 479; Perry v. Dover, 12 Pick., 211; Moore v. Miller, Harrison, 233; Converse v. Warren, 4 Iowa, 158.

Judgment reversed.

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

Hodges v. Hodges, 71 Am. Dec. 388, 6 Iowa 78, 1858 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 178 (iowa 1858).

71 Am. Dec. 388 (Hodges v. Hodges) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Galleger v. Duhigg
255 N.W. 867 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1934)
Adkins v. Globe Fire Insurance
32 S.E. 194 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1898)
Grosvenor v. Henry
27 Iowa 269 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1869)
Journey v. Dickerson
21 Iowa 308 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1866)
Farris v. Powell
10 Iowa 553 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1860)
Park v. Long
7 Iowa 434 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1858)