Robison v. Miller
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to tbe Chancery Court of Panola County. Hon. J. C. Gray, Chancellor. Where the service is constructive, strict compliance with the statute is essential. Bustamente v. Bescher, 43 Miss. 172. Under Code 1871, §§ 701, 702, the name of the person with whom the copy of the writ is left must be stated, for any serious defect in the return of service renders the decree erroneous. Bacon y.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Chancery Court of Panola County. Hon. J. C. Gray, Chancellor. Where the service is constructive, strict compliance with the statute is essential. Bustamente v. Bescher, 43 Miss. 172. Under Code 1871, §§ 701, 702, the name of the person with whom the copy of the writ is left must be stated, for any serious defect in the return of service renders the decree erroneous. Bacon y. Bevan, 44 Miss. 293; Hammond v. Olive, 44 Miss. 543; Hargus v. Bowen, 46 Miss. 72. The case of Morehead v. Ohaffe, 52 Miss. 161, supports this position.
1Opinion of the CourtGeorge, C. J.
This was a proceeding to enforce a lien on land for a balance of the purchase-money. The defendants were the purchaser and his two sureties. The service of the summons as to the purchaser was in these words: Executed on Robert G. Robison, by leaving a true copy of the same with a member of his family over the age of sixteen, he being willing to take and deliver the same, as he could not be found in my county after diligent search.” On this service,' a pro confesso was entered and a final decree rendered.
It is now objected that the service is defective, in that it does not give the name of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morehead v. ChaffeMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by3 opinions
- Thomas v. District Court of Third Judicial Dist. Ex Rel. Salt Lake CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1946
- Vaule v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Columbia Trust Co. v. SteinerUtah Supreme Court · 1928