Case ID: wright_1/html/0580-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LANE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HAYS, ET AL. v. THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
    Summons — service—place of abode — double assignment of error.
    Summons cannot be served by leaving a copy at the store of the defendant; by law a copy may be left at his usual place of abode. If such has been the service, and there is no appearance to cure it, a judgment by default is erroneous.
    Error in fact and error in law cannot be assigned together.
    Courts of error only look to the record for errors in law.
    Error to the Common Pleas. The original writ was a joint one under the statute of Ohio, by the bank against St. Glair, maker, and Roswell P. Hays and another, endorsers of a promissory note; it was returned, served personally on St. Clair, and upon the others by copies left with their clerics at their stores, they being [564 absent." The declaration describes Hays as “the said Roswell, sued by the name of Ralph," &c. There was no appearance, and judgment was had by default.
    
      Gaines, for plaintiff in error, made two points.
    1. That there was no service of the writ upon Hays and the other endorser.
    2. That Ralph Hays was sued, and Roswell Hays declared against and subjected to the judgment — the name of Ralph being erased from the writ, and Roswell written upon the erasure.
    
      Storer, contra,
    cited 1 Ch. Pl. 251, 2.
   LANE, J.

The law (29 O. L. 117) requires a summons lobe served either personally, or “by copyleft at the defendant's usual place of abode." The leaving a copy of the writ at the store of a defendant, is not a compliance with the law. In this case, there has been no appearance to cure the defect of service. We cannot notice the other error complained of, the record presents the writ as against Roswell, and a declaration following it; the words, sued by the name of Ralph, must be rejected as surplusage. If there be error in reference to this, it is not apparent on the record but of fact dehors, which cannot be assigned with an error in law. The first error requires of us to reverse the judgment with costs, as it regards the endorsers.