Case ID: iowa_9/html/0295-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wright, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nosler v. Githens, et al.
    
    1. Service or notice. The service of notice by leaving a copy at the residence of the defendant, is not sufficient if the return does not show that the defendant was not found.
    2. jDavis v. Burt, 7 Iowa 56; and Chittenden v. Bobbs, infra, cited and followed.
    
      Appeal from Polk District Court.
    Thursday, October 13.
    ACTION on a promissory note. The error in the proceedings below, of which the appellant complains, is presented in the opinion of the court. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    
      Jeff. S. Polk, for'the appellant,
    relied upon Davis v. Burt, et al., 7 Iowa 56; Diltz v. Chambers, 2 G. Greene 479; Peck-ley y. Gleason, 1 Iowa 85; Hodges sí. Hodges, 6 lb. 78; Harmon y. Lee, lb. 171; Converse v. Warner, 4 lb. 158.
    
      M. D. Sf Wm. H. McHenry, for the appellee.
   Wright, C. J.

The original notice was served, by leaving a copy with the wife of each defendant, at their respect-, ive residences; but the return does not show that the defends ants were not found, nor is any cause shown for making the substituted service. Held, That the return was insufficient, and the court erred in rendering judgment against defendants by default. Davis v. Burt. et al, 7 Iowa 56; Chittenden v. Hobbs, et al, infra.

Judgment reversed.