{ "id": 8728307, "name": "Oliver Gilbreath against James Kuykendall", "name_abbreviation": "Gilbreath v. Kuykendall", "decision_date": "1838-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "50", "last_page": "54", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "1 Ark. 50" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "4 Johns. Rep. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Rep.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 Johns. Rep. 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Rep.", "opinion_index": -1 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 527, "char_count": 10647, "ocr_confidence": 0.443, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.221902653231399e-06, "percentile": 0.9880944796395466 }, "sha256": "b0d6d2823b31317ffeb4960c3faebd4b6b3359ce32e2550747edc256f703bfec", "simhash": "1:0ea1d343d7d71979", "word_count": 1871 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:03.293086+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Oliver Gilbreath against James Kuykendall." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Ringo, Ch. J.,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court: This is a writ of error with supersedeas to a judgment by default in an action of 'debt, obtained by Kuykendall against Gilbreath, in the Crawford Circuit Court. The suit was commenced and the writ bears date on the 18th day of August, 1839, and commences as follows, to wit:\n\u201c Territory of Arkansas,).\nCounty of Crawford. ,- y\n\u201c The United States of America to the Sheriff of Crawford county, 44Greeting:\u2019 You are hereby commanded to summon Oliver Gilbreath, \u201cif he be found in your bailiwick, to appear before the Judge of our \u201c Circuit Court, at the court-house in the county aforesaid, on the first \u201c day of our next September term, it being the fourth Monday of \u201cAugust next, then and there to answer James Kuykendall,\u201d \u00e1te.\nThe Sheriff\u2019s return to the writ, is in these words, to wit: \u201c Served \u201cthe within summons rite, by reading the same to him in presence of liA. Boyd and James Rise. Richland township, Crawford county% Arkansas Territory, August 28th, 1836.\n\u201cJESSE MILLER, deputy Sheriff.\n\u201cWM. P. MOORE, Sheriff.\u201d\nThe defendant below failed to appear, and final judgment by de* fault w;as given against him at the December term, 183G, for the debt-mentioned in the declaration, and damages for the detention thereof, with costs of suit. Several errors have been assigned, most of which .g unnecessary mention. The second is to the effect that the writ runs in the name of the \u201cUnited States of America,\u201d when it should have run in the name of the \u201c State of Arkansas.\u201d And the fourth states, in substance, that it appears that there was no legal service of the writ and declaration on Gilbreath, and that he did not appear to the action. The questions raised by these assignments of error, may well be'considered,' together; for if the writ was void, or not legally executed'on the defendant below, he was under no legal obligation to, appear or answer the plaintiff\u2019s action, and could not be considered as in default in failing to do so. The defendant\u2019s right to ihsist upon a valid writ and legal service thereof upon him, before he Vfa3 bound to appear, or subject to the consequences of a legal default for'not' appearing, unless waived by himself, must be admitted. No such waiver, either, in fact or in l\u00e1Yv, expressed or implied, is shown by the record, and none can be presumed. -Consequently, as the defendant below did not appear, he must be regarded as entitled to. the benefit of all legal exceptions to the writ and service thereof.\nWe wiil now proceed to examine the writ and. return, and sec how far they justify and support the judgment given thereupon by the court below. The writ was an ordinary summons. By the act of 1807, sec. If) in Steele and McCampbel's Dig. of the laws of Arkansas, pages 316, 317, yet in force in this State, it is provided that \u201cThe service of a summons shall be by reading the writ, declaration, \u201cpetition, or statement, to the defendant, or delivering him a copy \u201cthereof, or leaving such copy at his usual place of abode with some \u201cperson of the'family above the age of fifteen years, and informing \u201csuch person of'the contents thereof; such service to be at least \u201c fifteen days before the return day thereof,\u201d\n\" Tirif! statutory provision furnishes the only rule by which the officer executing the summons must be governed. He must conform to. the directions there given,' and any material variation therefrom, will vitiate the service. \u2019His return, ought to.show, with reasonable certainty, the time, place, and manner of the service, and the name of the person or party upon whom it is made, so that it may appear to the court that the service was made in conformity with the provisions of the statute upon the person or party named in the writ, at a proper time, and within the jurisdiction of the officer making it. By comparing the return- of the Sheriff to the writ in this case, with the statutory provisions above recited,, it appears, manifestly, that the service was not made in the manner directed. The summons, only, and not the writ and declaration, as required by the statute, was read; but to whom that was read, does not appear by the return: and for aught that does appear, the writ may have been read to some person not named in it: we will not presume the fact to have been so; yet such might have been the case, and every thing stated in the return be true. The service was, therefore, not only not in conformity with the provisions of the statute, but the return thereof by the Sheriff is toe indefinite and uncertain to be the foundation of a judgment by default, By the Constitution of this State, under the title Judicial Department^ sec. 14, page 16, it is declared that \u201call writs and other process shall run in the name of the State of Arkansas, and bear teste and be signed by the Clerks of the respective courts from which they issue.\u201d The first section of athe Schedule to the Constitution, page 19, declares, \u201cThat no inconvenience may arise from the change of government, \u201cwe declare that all writs, actions, prosecutions, judgments, claims, \u201c and contracts of individuals and bodies corporate, shall continue as \u201cif no change had taken place; and all process which may be issued \u201cunder the authority of the Territory of Arkansas previous to the ad- \u201c mission of Arkansas into the union of the United States, shall be as \u201cvalid as if it issued in the name of the State.\u201d By act of Congress, approved June 15th, 1836, Arkansas was admitted into the union o\u00ed the United States as a sovereign and independent State. From that period the Constitution has been in full operation as the paramount law of the State. The provision first quoted, requires that all writs and other process shall run in the name of the State of Arkansas^ and the declaration in the Schedule only applies to writs and process issued \u201cprevious to the admission of Arkansas into the union of the United States.\u201d This writ was issued more than two months after the admission of Arkansas into the Union, and does not run in the name of the State of Arkansas, as required by the Constitution; and for that reason it is void. Other exceptions to the writ have been assigned by the plaintiff in error, which it is unnecessary to notice, as we consider the writ void, and the service thereof entirely insufiffi dent, for the reasons above stated. \u2019 .\nThe judgment of the court below must therefore be reversed, with costs; but as the plaintiff in error has now made himself a party to the suit, by voluntarily appearing and prosecuting his writ of error, according to the rule of practice established in similar cases by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in which we fully concur, he must, upon return of the caseto the court below,be considered as regularly before the court, in like manner as if he had been duly served with process to appear at the term to which the cause is returned.\nThe case must therefore be remanded to the Crawford Circuit Court,.to be proceeded in by that court, at the next regular term thereof, as if the defendant below was duly served with process returnable thereto.", "type": "majority", "author": "Ringo, Ch. J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Walker and Fowler, for the plaintiff:", "Cummins and Pike, contra." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Oliver Gilbreath against James Kuykendall.\nError from Crawford Circuit Court.\nOn judgment by default, the defendant below is entitled to all legal exceptions to the writ and service thereof.\nThe return of the Sheriff must show with reasonable certainty, the time,place, and manner of the service, and the name of the person upon whom it is made.\n\u201c Served this Summons right, by reading it to him,\u201d is not a sufficient service.'\nA writ running in the name of the United States of America, issued after the 15th June, 1836, is void.\nThis was an action of debt commenced in Crawford Circuit Court.' Judgment was taken by default, and writ of error prosecuted by Gil-breath, defendant below. The case was submitted without argument.-\nWalker and Fowler, for the plaintiff:\nThis was an action of debt brought by Kuykendall against'Gilbreath, in the Circuit Court of Crawford county, Stale of Arkansas; and judgment rendered against Gilbreath, in the December term thereof,-1836, by default.\nIt is contended, for the plaintiff in error, that the declaration was' not sufficient in law, because there was no proper venue: the declaration should have alleged that the contract, &c., was made in Crawford county, Slate of Arkansas, to' show that it was within th.e jurisdiction of the Court; said suit having been instituted after the admission of Arkansas'into the Union as a State. See Stale Const., Sched ule, sec. 1. \u2014 Act of Congress of June 15, 1836.\nit is also contended that the writ is void because it docs not run in' the name of the \u201c State of Arkansas.\u2019\u2019\u2019\u2019 Arkansas being a sovereign\" State, and her Constitution in full force from and after the 15th of June, 1836,- the date of her admission into the Union. See Act of Congress and State Constitution, article 6. sect. 14, p. 16.\nIt is also contended that said original writ is a nullity and void, because, 1st. It was not issued by any officer known to the Constitution, or in or returnable to any court known to the Constitution, as appears from the face of the writ. 2d, It is not made returnable to the ternf i)Ext after its date; or to the second term after its date. 3d, It is not made returnable tc any term fixed by law for holding said Circuit Court. The writ hears date, August 18,1836, and is returnable \u201c on\" the first day of our next September term, it being the fourth Monday of August next;\u201d consequently returnable in August, 1837, eight months after judgment appears to have been given. Pope, Steele & McC\u2019s. Dig. p. 313, sec. 1,3, 4; p. 320, sec. 18; Acts of 1835, p. 76, sec. 2; Johns. Dig. 503; 2 Johns. Rep. 190; 4 Johns. Rep. 309. \u2019 \u2019 x _\n_ It is also contended that there was no service of the writ and declaration^ legal or illegal; and as Gilbreth did not appear to cure the want of service, judgment against him was clearly error. Pope, Steele and McCampbelPs Dig. p. 317, sec. 10.\nIt also appears that the contract given in evidence was not under seal, while the one declared on was under seal, and that such variance js fatal. And if it be a writing obligatory, it is one with conditions, which conditions should have been stated and breaches assigned, before judgment. And whether under seal or not, on default, it is such an instrument as would require the intervention of a Jury to assess the damages, at the next term after the default. 1 .Saunders\u2019 Rep. 51 to 58. Qainsford vs. Griffith; Pope and McCamp. Dig. p. 322, sec. 84; p. 348, sec. 95. Cases in this Court, Campbell and wife vs. Strong, and Robbins and Reese vs. Hornero\nCummins and Pike, contra." }, "file_name": "0050-01", "first_page_order": 54, "last_page_order": 58 }