TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

King v. McCampbell

King v. McCampbell, 6 Blackf. 435 (1843)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1843
Judges
Blackford
Citations
6 Blackf. 435
Headnotes
Husband and Wive—PROCESS.—In a suit against husband and wife, the process need only be served on the husband; and such service being made, the subsequent proceedings should be against both the defendants.
Summary
ERROR to the Clark Probate Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Blackford

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Blackford, J.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by McCampbell against George T. King, executor, and Jane *Ann, his wife, executrix, of the estate of William Ferguson, deceased. The process was returned served on the husband, and “not found” as to the wife. On the defendants' failing to appear to the suit, there was an entry made of their default. Afterwards the Court, on examining the evidence in the cause, rendered final judgment against the defendant King alone.

The process having been served on the husband, he was bound to appear for himself and his wife; 3 Chitt. G. P., 263; and as he failed so to appear., the default as to both defendants was correctly entered. The subsequent proceedings against the husband alone are erroneous: they should have been against both the defendants.

Per Cur-iam.—The judgment- is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &e.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1859–1860: 11879–1880: 118592026peak 1859 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harlan v. Edwards13 Ind. 430 (1859)
  2. Versepuy v. Watson12 R.I. 342 (1879)

Most recent

  1. Versepuy v. Watson12 R.I. 342 (1879)
  2. Harlan v. Edwards13 Ind. 430 (1859)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list