Case ID: wis_138/html/0126-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Marshall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raulf, Respondent, vs. Chicago Fire Brick Company and another, Appellants.
    
      January 29
    
    February 16, 1909.
    
    
      Process: Proving falsity of return of service.
    
    There is no fixed rule as to the quantum of proof required to establish falsity of an officer’s return. Evidence reasonably, clearly satisfying the trier or triers that the return is false is sufficient.
    Aeeeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Lawrektoe W. Halsey, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action to enjoin collection of a garnishee judgment.
    The claim of the plaintiff upon which issue was joined Was that a garnishee judgment was rendered against him in justice’s court June 28, 1905, in defendant’s favor; that the summons in the garnishee proceedings was not served upon him in any way; that he did not have any notice of either the judgment or the proceedings till June, 1907, when he seasonably commenced this action; that neither when the proceedings were commenced nor thereafter up to and inclusive of the rendition of judgment was he indebted to defendant in the action to which the garnishee action was incident save and except the sum of $7; that the justice was so informed before the judgment was rendered, and that the indebtedness was thereafter paid. The principal controversy was as to whether the return of the officer, that he made personal service on the plaintiff, was false. The court found all the material facts in plaintiff’s favor.
    Eor the appellant there was a brief by Harry M. Sheets, attorney, and John A. McGormiclc, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Sheets.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by Perry & Kroesvng, and oral argument by O. B. Perry.
    
   Marshall, J.

It is conceded tbat if the findings of fact «tand the judgment must be. affirmed. There is no question -of law of any moment involved. Sticb questions as there are relate to the quantum of proof required to establish falsity •of an officer’s return. There is no fixed rule as to that. Evidence, reasonably, clearly satisfying the trier or triers that the return i# false, is sufficient. It is the opinion of the court that this appeal is ruled in favor of respondent by the familiar ■principle that a court’s conclusions of fact cannot be disturbed -on appeal unless found to be against the clear preponderance of the evidence. The case does not require discussion of the evidence, and it is thought best to rest with this brief opinion.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.