Ingraham v. McGraw
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Nemaha County. The return of the officer endorsed on the process was in substance as follows: “Served this writ on the within named defendant by leaving a copy thereof, together with the endorsements thereon, at his usual place of residence in said county.” On motion to set aside the service, affidavits made after the return of the officer, were read.
Read the full summary
Error from Nemaha County. The return of the officer endorsed on the process was in substance as follows: “Served this writ on the within named defendant by leaving a copy thereof, together with the endorsements thereon, at his usual place of residence in said county.” On motion to set aside the service, affidavits made after the return of the officer, were read. These affidavits set forth the place at which the copy of summons was left, and further that the defendant actually resided at another place out of the county. The court below granted the motion. The case comes to this court on…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cbozier, C. J.
It is unnecessary to a disposition of this case, that this court should determine the general question, whether the return of an officer can be contradicted ? That question does not arise upon the record.'
Every legal presumption is in favor of the truth of a sheriff’s return. The officer in this case having returned that he served the writ by leaving a copy at the defendant’s usual place of residence, the place where he left it must be presumed to be the defendant’s residence at the time of the service. But his real residence is a collateral fact about which there…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State ex rel. Parker v. CorcoranSupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
- Harwi v. HarwiSupreme Court of Kansas · 1936
- Dickinson v. DickinsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1943
- Dillon Co. v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2008
- Gentry v. HornungSupreme Court of Kansas · 1932