Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

43 Ark. 545

Epps v. Sasby

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1884

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1884-11-15

Hon. G. S. Cunningham. There was no proper service on Epps. Gantt’s Dig., See. 4511-4514. And the Justice had no jurisdiction to render judgment by default. Judgment without notice is void. lb., See. 4738. Epps only appeared for the purpose of moving to quash the return, and objecting to the Justice taking jurisdiction. This was not an appearance to the action, lb., 3736; 3 Ark, 532; 5 Id., 409; 18 Id., 308; 1 Id., 376; 5 Id., 517; 20 Id., 12.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1929

4 state decisions

3018841890190019101920decided

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 →

Smith, J.

¶1Sasby sued Steel & Epps upon a due bill made by them, in their firm name, for $20.62. The con stable returned service upon Epps by leaving a copy of process at his residence with a member of his family over the age of fifteen years. As to Steel, be made a return of “ non est inventus.” At 10 A. m., of the day set for trial, Epps appeared and requested that the case be postponed until 1 P. M., in order to give his attorney time to arrive. In due time the attorney came and moved the justice to quash the return upon the summons. This the justice declined to do, and Epps saying nothing further, judgment was rendered against both defendants.

¶2To quash this judgment, Steel & Epps sued out a writ of certiorari, alleging in their petition that the same was void, for want of jurisdiction oyer the persons of the defendants, and further, that the due bill, which was the foundation of the action, was made without consideration, and under the influence of false and fraudulent representation of the payee of the instrument.

¶3On the hearing it was admitted that no valid service of the process had been made upon either Steel or Epps. The circuit court in effect quashed the judgment against Steel, and affirmed it as to Epps.

¶4With the justice or injustice of the original claim, and whether Epps was legally liable to pay it, if the action had been defended, we have nothing to do. That matter has been forever set at rest by the adjudication of the justice, if there has been a valid one. And the only method of correcting any error in the proceedings, after the question of jurisdiction is settled, was by prosecuting an appeal.

¶5The judgment against Steel, being without notice to him, was absolutely void. Gantt’s Dig., Sec., 4738. But Epps was bound by his own voluntary appearance. Smith. v Parker, 25 Ark., 518; McCoy v. Lemons, Hempst, 216; Ward v. Todd, 103 U. S., 327.

¶6Affirmed.

/43/ark/545 · .json · Public domain