Carey v. Butler
Carey and Another v. Butler
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hanna, J.
This was a suit upon a note. The summons was dated the 22d day of December, 1856, and by it the sheriff was commanded to summon the defendants to appear, &c., “ on the second day of the next April term” of said Court. The January term intervened, at which the defendants were defaulted, and judgment entered against them.
The process was served on the appellants on the 24th of December, 1856. The January term commenced on the first Monday, being the 5th day of the month, 1857. Consequently, the service was a sufficient length of time before the term to authorize the default, if, by the terms of the writ, such proceeding could be had at that term of the Court.
In Shirley v. Hagar, 3 Blackf. 225 , it was decided that a writ issued on the 19th day of January, 1832, returnable on the Wednesday after the last Monday in August, then next, was a nullity; because, by the statute then in *392 force, the writ was returnable on the first day of the next term after it issued, and the February term intervened, &e.
E. Dumont and O. B. Torbet, for the appellants.
The process, according to this authority, was a nullity, and, consequently, no judgment rendered by default could be legal.
Per Curiam. — The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.