Hodges v. Hodges
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.
Stockton, J.
— It is urged that the decree rendered by the district court is invalid, for the reason that there was no sufficient return of the service of the original notice upon defendant. The return does not state the manner of the service, as required by sec. 1723, of the Code. It is the duty of the person serving the notice to set forth, in his return all the acts by him done, in order that the proper *79 tribunal may judge of their sufficiency. The law does not permit him to judge of the legality or sufficiency of the service. A return that the notice was served, or even duly served, is insufficient. The manner of service must be shown. The court had no right to proceed against the defendant, unless it properly appeared that she was served with notice of the action. Dills v. Chambers, 2 G. Greene, 479; Perry v. Dover, 12 Pick., 211 ; Moore v. Miller, Harrison, 233; Converse v. Warren, 4 Iowa, 158 .
Judgment reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.