Moulton v. Williams
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Wau-shara county: John Goodland, Judge. Action commenced in justice’s court to recover on a promissory note. The summons was served by a person appointed for that purpose, under sec. 3608, E. S. 1878, but the necessity for the appointment was not first established by affidavit filed with the justice as required by such section.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Wau-shara county: John Goodland, Judge. Action commenced in justice’s court to recover on a promissory note. The summons was served by a person appointed for that purpose, under sec. 3608, E. S. 1878, but the necessity for the appointment was not first established by affidavit filed with the justice as required by such section. Two days after the first service, and a sufficient time before the return day of the summons, a second service was made by an officer authorized by law. Defendant appeared generally, but whether in response to the first…
1Opinion of the CourtMabshall, J.
An affidavit of the plaintiff, or of some one in his behalf, first duly filed with the justice, establishing the necessity for the appointment of a person to serve the summons, was a condition precedent to such appointment under sec. 3608, Stats. 1898. That condition not having been complied with, the first service was void. If the appearance can be said to have been in response to the void service, it did not waive the benefit of the statute of limitations. Its only effect was to give the justice jurisdiction of the person. The only way the statute could have been impliedly waived was by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mariner v. Town of WaterlooWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by2 opinions
- Coleman v. BoltonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970
- Rhode v. Quinn Construction Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1935