Wendel v. Durbin
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Calumet County. Ejectment. Judgment having been entered against the defendant as for a default in answering, he moved to set it aside on the ground that no summons had ever been served in the manner required by the statute.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Calumet County. Ejectment. Judgment having been entered against the defendant as for a default in answering, he moved to set it aside on the ground that no summons had ever been served in the manner required by the statute. It appeared that the copy summons served did not contain any indorsement stating the date of service, and that the same was a true copy of the original, as required by ch. 68, Laws of 1869. There was no affidavit of merits. The motion was denied, and the defendant appealed. cited 2 Whit. Pr. 577-580; 14 Wis. 28; 18 id. 397; 13 id. 569; 20…
1Opinion of the CourtDixon, C. J.
The statute (Laws of 1869, ch. 68) prescribing that in all cases of service of summons, “ the officer or person making such service shall indorse on such copy, over his signature, the date of such service, and that the same is a true copy of the original,” is mandatory and not directory in its terms, and the service, to be effectual for any purpose, must *392be in accordance with it, unless the requirement is waived by the defendant. The indorsement is one step in the service, and a necessary part of it, as much so as the delivery of the copy. This must be the effect, of the statute, or else it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People ex rel. McKune v. WellerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by11 opinions
- Twohy Bros. v. Ochoco Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Heffner v. GunzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Hayes County v. WilemanNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Western Pattern & Manufacturing Co. v. American Metal Shoe Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- Gilman v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.