Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Tex. 130

Underhill v. Lockett

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1857

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

<p>Where the citation was returned, “executed March 20th, 1856, by delivering a certified copy of petition, together with a true copy of this writ,” and judgment went by default, on error the judgment was reversed on the ground that the return did not state that the copies were delivered to the defendant.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1966

8 state decisions

30185718601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Roberts, J.

¶1This is a judgment by default, and the error assigned is that the return of the service of process is defective.

¶2It reads “executed March 20th, 1856, by delivering a certified copy of petition together with a true copy of this writ.” It does not state to whom it was delivered.

¶3The statute concerning Sheriffs, of 1846, (Art, 2894, Hart. Dig.) prescribes “that the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff shall indorse on all process and precepts, coming into their hands, the day on which they received them, the manner in which they executed them, and the day when they executed them, and shall sign their return officially.” The statute of 1848, (Art. 811, Hart. Dig.,) provides “ that the return of the Sheriff or other officer shall be in writing on the back of the process,-or attached thereto, stating fully the time and manner of service, and shall be signed by him officially.”

¶4The manner of serving process by the Sheriff (unless otherwise directed) is “ by delivering to the party or parties in person, upon whom he is required to serve it” copies of the writ and petition, &c. (Art. 679, Hart. Dig.)

¶5In this case it is easy to infer the fact, that the Sheriff delivered the process to the party upon whom he was required by the writ, to serve it. But how infer it? from something in the return or from something outside of the return ? Such inference does not arise from anything stated in the return. For so far as the written statement goes, it may have been delivered to one person as well as another. But it arises from our experience and observation in relation to the acts of officers who serve such process. Now is that inference (so founded) as to the existence of the fact, to be decided by the Court, to be the fact fully stated; as the statute requires? We think not. The requirements of the statute are plain and imperative; and parties taking a default can easily have their returns corrected, if erroneously made; and they should be required to conform to the statute. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

¶6Reversed and remanded.

/20/tex/130 · .json · Public domain