Case ID: del_20/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lobe, C. J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James E. Heavalow and Gertrude Heavalow, d. b., vs. Charles A. Conner, p. b.
    
      Certiorari—Justice of Peace; Record of; Exceptions to—Summons
    
    
      a Part of the Record—Forthwith Summons—Entry of
    
    
      Judgment; When Made—Practice.
    
    The record of the Justice showed that the return of a forthwith summons was on the twenty-first of the month, but the summons itself, which is a part of the record, showed that the return was on the twenty-second, the day the judgment was rendered by default. Held that the judgment should not be reversed.
    
      (October 18, 1901.)
    
    Lore, C. J., and Grubb and Pewewill, J. J., sitting.
    
      Charles F. Richards for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Andrew J. Lynch and Charles W. Cullen for defendant in error.
    Superior Court, Sussex County,
    October Term, 1901.
    Certiorari to Charles T. Purnell, a Justice of the Peace in and for Sussex County
    (No. 35,
    October Term, 1901).
    The record showed that the summons was issued on the twenty-first of August, 1901, made returnable forthwith, that the return was made on the twenty-first of August, 1901, and that judgment was rendered by the said Justice, by default, on the twenty-second of August, 1901.
    
      The following exceptions were filed:
    
      First. For that it does not appear from the said record that the said Justice rendered said judgment on the day upon which the .summons was returnable.
    
      Second. For that the said defendants were summoned on the twenty-first day of August, 1901, to appear before said Justice forthwith and judgment by default was rendered on another and a , different day from the one upon which the said defendants were required to appear.
   Lobe, C. J.:

The record shows that the summons was issued returnable on the twenty-first, but the summons itself, which is a part of the record, shows that the return was on the twenty-second.

The judgment below is affirmed.