Hodges v. Hodges
This text of 71 Am. Dec. 388 (Hodges v. Hodges) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
— 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]*79tribunal 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
71 Am. Dec. 388, 6 Iowa 78, 1858 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-hodges-iowa-1858.