Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

59 Ark. 328

Rutherford v. Moody

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 23, 1894

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1894-06-23

Edgar E. Bryant, Judge. 1. A summons may be served by an officer or person authorized by law to serve process. Mansf. Dig. sec. 4037. Thos. E. Ward was not “a party to the action.” Ib. 4975 and clause 3. The practice in circuit • court is followed in justices’ courts. Ib. ch. 91, sec. 4034; 37 Ark. 450; Dig. secs. 4975, 4038. An appointment by the justice was not necessary. Ib. sec. 4975.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1976

3 state decisions

Relies on White v. Haffaker · Ingraham v. Leland

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-06-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hughes, J.

¶1The appellant sued the appellee before a justice of the peace, and the summons issued by the justice was served by the appellant’s attorney. Moody moved to quash the service upon him, because made by appellant’s attorney. The motion was sustained, and thereupon the cause was dismissed as to Moody, who then tendered to the appellant the amount of his debt, which appellant refused to receive, which Moody thereupon paid into court. The appellant appealed to circuit court, where appellee renewed the motion to quash, which was sustained, and he appealed to this court.

¶2i. service of process by attorney.

¶3The service of process, in a suit, should be made by . . an mditterent person, and not by a party, or one inter- • ested in the suit, as attorney, or otherwise. Weeks on Attorneys, sec. 122; Ingraham v. Leland, 19 Vt. 304; White v. Haffaker, 27 Ill. 349.

¶42. As to appearance.

¶5There does not appear to have been any intention upon the part of appellant to appear in the action, and his tender and subsequent payment of the debt into court, was not an appearance to the action.

¶6The judgment is affirmed.

/59/ark/328 · .json · Public domain