Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

58 Neb. 802

Graves v. Macfarland

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1899

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1899-06-21

<p>1. Summons: Sheriff’s Return. An officer’s return, within the meaning' ol the statute relating- to the service ol process, includes not only the certificate of service, but also the delivery of the writ to the office from which it issued.</p> <p>3. -: Service: Time to Make Return. If a summons be served within the time limited by the statute, the court from which it issued acquires jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, and may render a valid judgment against him, notwithstanding- the officer’s failure to make his return during- the life of the writ.</p> <p>3. Mortgage-Foreclosure: Deficiency Judgment. In an action brought to foreclose a real estate mortgage the district court, prior to 1897, was authorized to render a deficiency judgment against- a purchaser who had assumed and agreed to pay the incumbrance in suit.</p> <p>4. -: -: Notice. ■ The jurisdiction of the district court to render a deficiency judgment under the provisions of section 847 ol the Code of Civil Procedure did not depend upon the service of any notice other than the original summons.</p> <p>5. --: ■-: --: Pleading. A deficiency judgment against a purchaser of mortgaged premises is not void because the personal liability of such purchaser is not shown by the petition. It is sufficient if the fact is disclosed by the answer of the mortgagor who, claiming to stand in the attitude of a surety, demands exoneration.</p> <p>6. Service of Summons: Insufficiency of Evidence. Evidence examined, and found insufficient to support the finding of the trial court.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1899-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1968

8 state decisions

3018991900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Norval, J.,

¶1dissenting.

¶2I find myself unable to reach the conclusion that the evidence adduced on the trial is insufficient to sustain the finding of the court below that service of summons was not duly made upon George Graves in the foreclosure cause. In addition .to the sheriff’s return indorsed on the summons in that suit, and the presumption which must be indulged in favor of its truthfulness, there is the clear, positive, and direct testimony of that officer that he served the summons on Graves at his residence in Neligh on the date named in the return by leaving' a true copy of the writ for him with Mrs. Graves. Certainly this evidence was sufficient to support the finding of the district court. There was a large mass of evidence introduced tending to show that the summons was not served upon Graves, which would have warranted the court below in deciding this point in favor of Graves. There Avas a sharp conflict in the evidence, and to disturb the judgment of the district court is to disregard the rule time and again asserted and applied by each member of this court that a finding of fact based on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on review.

/58/neb/802 · .json · Public domain