Senescal v. Bolton
New Mexico Supreme Court
Error, from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, to the Fourth- Judicial District Court, San Miguel County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The record shows no service of process on Blanchard five days before the term. Jurisdiction of the person must appear in some way, and if the face of the-record leaves that in doubt, the judgment is erroneous, and it has been held even void.
Read the full summary
Error, from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, to the Fourth- Judicial District Court, San Miguel County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The record shows no service of process on Blanchard five days before the term. Jurisdiction of the person must appear in some way, and if the face of the-record leaves that in doubt, the judgment is erroneous, and it has been held even void. Freeman on Judgments, sec. 124. This defect, not having been cured by appearance- or other proceeding, is properly raised here. 1 Am. and Eng. Encyclopedia of Law, 624; 12 Id. 307, and note; Id. 310,…
1Opinion of the CourtSeeds, J.
This was an action in assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error, James Bolton, .against Senescal and two others upon a note signed by them, and against Charles Blanchard and Louisa D. Bernard, as administrators of the goods and chattels of ■one Joab M. Bernard, deceased, who was á joint maker of the note sued upon. The two administrators made ■default, and judgment was taken against them absolutely, so that execution would be levied against their individual goods, instead of those of the deceased, Joab M. Bernard. The administrator, Charles Blanchard, sues out his writ of error to this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. MoralesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2011