Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Blackf. 169

Bliss v. Wilson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1836

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1836-11-30

<p>ERROR to the Cass Circuit Court.</p>

Relies on Nadenbush v. Lane

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1836-11-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2006

12 state decisions

40183618401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

Blackford, J.

¶1Wilson recovered a judgment by default against Bliss, in Huntington county, before a justice of the peace. Afterwards, a scire f acias to show cause why execution should not issue upon that judgment, was issued against Bliss in Cass county by a justice of the peace. Bliss appeared to the scire facias, and judgment was rendered against him. lie then appealed to the Circuit Court. The parties submitted the cause to the Circuit Court, and a judgment was there rendered against Bliss for the sum considered to be due.

¶2The objection to these proceedings is, that the judgment in Huntington county was rendered against the defendant by default, without his having had notice of the suit.

¶3It has been decided, that in the case of a judgment by default, the writ and return are a necessary part of the record. Nadenbush v. Lane, 4 Rand. 413. The reason of this is, that the record may always show whether the judgment rendered against a man in his absence, was with or without notice of the suit. If he had no notice, in cases like the present, the judgment is a nullity. Were the law otherwise, every person would be liable to have judgments rendered against him without cause, and without his knowledge.

¶4The transcript of the justice in Huntington county shows that process had issued in the cause against Bliss, and had been returned; but it does not show that the process had been served. For any thing that appears in the record, Bliss may not have had any notice, either actual or constructive, of the pendency of that suit; and the judgment against him in the case, therefore, is of no validity. The necessary consequence is, that the scire f acias and proceedings under it, founded on that judgment, cannot be sustained. ■

Per Curiam.

¶5The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

/4/blackf/169 · .json · Public domain