Slocum v. Slocum

17 Wis. 150
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 17 Wis. 150 (Slocum v. Slocum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Slocum v. Slocum, 17 Wis. 150 (Wis. 1863).

Opinion

By the Court,

DixoN, O. J.

Tbe ^affidavit to obtain tbe order [151]*151for publication is defective in not showing that a cause of action exists against tbe defendant. To authorize service by publication and deposit in tbe post office, it must appear by affidavit not only tbat tbe person on whom service is to be made cannot, after due diligence, be found within tbe state, but it shall in like manner appear that a cause of action exists against the defendant in respect to whom the service is to he made, . or that he is a necessary or proper party to an action relating to real property in this state. R. S., ch. 124, sec. 10.

As tbe publication is asked in respect to a sole defendant, tbe cause of action, if one exists, must be against him; and tbe affidavit should show it. In'such a case it is clearly not enough tbat it appears tbat the action concerns real property in this state; for why proceed to service by publication merely because tbe defendant is interested in such property, no cause of action being shown respecting it ? Tbe provision for publication and service by post upon “ a necessary or proper party to an action relating to real property in this state,” is obviously intended to meet tbe case of an absent or non-resident defendant who has or claims a lien or interest as described in subdivision four of tbe same section, tbe primary cause of action being against another, who is or must be served as tbe principal defendant.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

State ex rel. Security Bank v. Buttz
131 N.W. 241 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1911)
Britton v. Larson
23 Neb. 806 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1888)
Cummings v. Tabor
21 N.W. 72 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1884)
Fouts v. Mann
15 Neb. 172 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1883)
Atkins v. Atkins
9 Neb. 191 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1879)
Claypoole v. Houston
12 Kan. 324 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1873)
Nelson v. Rountree
23 Wis. 367 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1868)
Rankin v. Adams
18 Wis. 292 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Wis. 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slocum-v-slocum-wis-1863.