Hutchens v. Latimer

5 Ind. 67
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided May 23, 1854·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Stuart, J.

Assumpsit by Latimer, Jenkins, & Co., against Hutchens and others, on a promissory note. Upon, the calling of the cause, the defendants filed their affidavit, the main point of which was, that the only service of summons was by copy; that but one copy was left at the house where two of the defendants resided, one of them as a boarder in the family of the other; setting out such copy in hcec verba. Such is also the substance of the sheriff’s return on the summons, as appears elsewhere in the record. [68]*68The defendants thereupon moved the Court to set aside the service, and continue for process, &c., which was overrule(j) an(j -(¡he defendants excepted. On failing further to appear, they were defaulted, and judgment was rendered for the amount of the note and interest.

J. G. Marshall, for the plaintiffs.

Two objections are taken to these proceedings. One, that the name of the attorney was not indorsed on the summons

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

Hutchens v. Latimer, 5 Ind. 67 (Ind. 1854).

5 Ind. 67 (Hutchens v. Latimer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Allburn v. State Ex Rel. Warrick County Sheriff's Department
826 N.E.2d 682 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2005)
Idlewine v. Madison County Bank & Trust Co.
439 N.E.2d 1198 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1982)
Serrano v. Berdiel
22 P.R. 416 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1915)