Atwood v. Landis
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff recovered judgment by default in the municipal court of the city of St. Paul. In the summons, (which was personally served on William H.Landis,) in the complaint, and in the judgment the defendant was described as “William A. Landers.”
Read the full summary
Plaintiff recovered judgment by default in the municipal court of the city of St. Paul. In the summons, (which was personally served on William H.Landis,) in the complaint, and in the judgment the defendant was described as “William A. Landers.” After judgment entered and execution levied, the plaintiff obtained an order for William H. Landis to show cause why the summons and all subsequent proceedings should not be amended by inserting his name as defendant, the sole grounds of the application being that William H. Landis was personally served with the summons ; that he was the same person…
1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.
The similarity between the names “ William H. Landis” and “William A. Landers” is not such as to constitute this a case of “ idem sonans.” It is not claimed that defendant was ever known by any other than his true name, nor does it appear from either the complaint or summons that he was sued by the name of William A. Landers because his real name was unknown. Under these circumstances no jurisdiction was acquired over the person of the defendant by the service and return of the summons in this case, and no appearance ever having been made for him in the action, all the proceedings therein…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Farnham v. HildrethNew York Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by6 opinions
- D'Autremont v. Anderson Iron Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Casper v. KlippenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Taussig v. GlennCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1892
- Morse v. BarrowsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Hampton Farmers Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.