Case ID: pin_1/html/0386-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Miller, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The United States ex rel. Boyd vs. Lockwood.
    1. Service or rude. A rule to show cause why an information in the nature of quo wwrrcmto should not be filed, may be served by a private person; and the time and manner of service may be made to appear by affidavit.
    2. Bjetürit. Where a writ is directed to the sheriff, the under-sheriff or a deputy may serve it, but he must make the return in the name of the principal officer to whom the writ is directed.
    At the July term, 1843, upon the application of M. M. Jackson, attorney-general, a rule was entered against Lockwood to show cause at the present term why an information, in quo warranto, should not be filed against Mm, to inquire by what authority he exercised the office of judge of probate of Crawford county.
    A copy of the rule was made out and sealed by the clerk on the 4th day of January, 1844. The service indorsed upon it was as follows : “ TMs writ was served on the 2d day of July, 1844, personally, by reading and delivering to the defendant an attested copy of tMs writ in hand. H. W. Savage, Under Sheriff.”
    At the present term M. M. Jackson, attorney-general, applied to the court for a rule against the respondent to enter his appearance and file Ms response to the rule to show cause; and contended that the rule of last term had been properly served and in time to require the respondent to answer.
   Miller, J.

In tMs case a rule was issued by the clerk on the 4th day of January last, in pursuance of a previous order of tMs court upon the defendant to show cause, on or before tMs term of tMs court, why an information in the nature of a quo warranto should not be filed against Mm, to show by what authority he claims to have and exercise the office of judge of probate of the county of Crawford. The rule is returned with this indorsement :

“ TMs writ was served on the 2d day of July, 1844, personally, by reading and delivering to the defendant an attested copy of this writ in hand.,” Signed: “H. W. Savage, Under Sheriff.” A motion is made by the attorney-general that the defendant appear and answer, wMch cannot be granted by the court.

This is not a writ issued out. of this court to an officer of the court, whose official return thereto could be required. It is a mere rule, wMch can be served by any person competent to do business ; and the time and manner of such service may be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court, by the affidavit of the person who served it. If it were a writ directed to a sheriff, a deputy of the sheriff or an under sheriff could not make a legal return to the same in his own name. An under sheriff or deputy can do business and make and indorse a return to a writ, but he must do so in the name of the principal officer to whom the writ is directed. The motion is refused.