The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-10-17

middle letter Of the name does nc
affect the service, and tha
the concluding part OF the sfh
davit OF service. 10 Un. The words
that he knew the person served
as aforesaid, To DO the prssideD
of said company menlion' d and des
cribed in said summons" cures t7e
defect. Ordinarily the middle tie
OF mans name cuts no figure, hI'
there may be cases where the ideI
Gcatioa OF a party may dep md upOu
his name The peculiar mode o
making a return OF service of pro
cess uLder the laws, or N the prsc-
ice of the courts OF New YORK, seems
to me to render it necessary that the
| identity OF the person served be
clearly established. Judging from
the forms of return as they appear in
the record, it becomes the duty of the
person making the service to swear
that be knew the person served 10 be
The person mentioned and described
IN the summons. Ii is not possible
Tor any one to know q corporation
otherwise than by its name. A man
may be known to another by his per-
onal physical appearance as welliss
by his name. In this case it appears
that the same person who served the
man Charles W. Sco6eld, one Of the
defendants in the New York case,
made the service on the man Charles
q. Scofeld az the president OF the
defendant company. Looking at
the two aftidsvits as they appear on
the face Of the record, and without
any other light, and taking into con-
sideration til at the services in both in
stances was made by the same per.
son, We are driven to the conclusion
that the persons served were TIVE
distinct persons. The afiant swears
that he knew Charles w. Scofield ss
the party mentioned and described in
the summons as one OF the defen-
dsnts in the action, and that he
knew Charles II. Scofield as the pre-
sident OF the defendant company.
We can take nothing for granted.
The case must be decided upon the
proofs as made to the court. The
plaintiffs have offered and rely upon
the record OF the New York case. In
it we find that the service was
made on Charles II. Scofield, as pre-
sident OF the defendant company. No
proof is rendered 10 show that this is a
clerical mistake or a mistake at all.
The defendant company Hdduces proof
that no such person as Charles II.
Scoield was at the time Of such ser
vice it president. Il Charles Il. SEQ.
field was not then president of de.
PENDANT company, there was no service
on the president of the company and |
for want thereof the New York court |
could not aud did not obtain jurisdic-
ton in the case. hold that Charles
FL. Scofeld was not the PRECEDENT of
defendant company at the time of the
alleged service of process of the sum-
mons issued in the case In which the |
judgment was rendered in the New |
York case, and that therefore that
court did not have jurisdiction in the
case, and 90 finding l hold that the
Judgment rendered in the supreme |
court of New York, upon which it is
sought in this proceeding to obtain a
Judgment in this court, has no bind
ing effect in this territory; that it is s |
mere nullity here.
1t is well settled law that il in a |
suit upon the record of q foreign |
Judgment it appears the defendant
had not proper notice and did not |
appear to the original action. the
paper introduced as to him is no
record. l do not think the plaintiff
bss established a cause OF action |
against the defendant. and the COM
plant should be dismissed with costs.
The MACKINNoN PIN will supersede
the steel Pen as efiectuslly as the
after did the old-time quill. Il. L,
A. CULMER, agent for Utah.