St. Paul Harvester Co. v. Faulhaber

Epperson, C.

In 1890, the plaintiff, St. Panl Harvester Company, recovered judgment against appellants in the district court for Lancaster county. This judgment became dormant, and in 1904 plaintiff instituted these proceedings to revive it. Defendant, Louis Eaulhaber, Sr., objected to revivor because no summons had been served on him in the original action and the court never acquired jurisdiction over his person. Trial Avas liad to the court, an order reviving the judgment Avas entered, and defendant, Eaulhaber, Sr., appeals.

The principal questions argued are that the evidence does not…