Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-03-31

in the preceding S0cC1On SectIou OILS
is made applicable to Justices Courts by /
Section 1922, the word "Justice'' deemed |
to be inserted for the word Clerk
The affidavit was made by ono Of the /
plaintiffs. 1t shows that the action was
brought by the plaintiffs against the de-
PENDANT to recover the sum of $3.50 for !
goods, etc., sold and delivered to him at |
his request, and it is averred that Zenas
Pratt, the defendant, is indebted to said |
plaintiffs in said sum over and above all !
legal set offs or counter claims. 1t shows
the existance CT tho first and second !.
grounds for an attachment enumerated |
in the preceding section" (Sec,lon 32lS)
We think that the affidavit made suf- !
ficient showing to warrant the issuing of
said attachment.
SERVICE OF SUMMONS. In lieu Of the
publication of the summons and deposit
of copy thereof, with a copy of the
complaint, in the postoffice, IS ordered
by the. Justice, personal service of a
copy of the summons and complaint
was made on the defendant in the City of
San Francisco, State Of California, On the
2lst day of July, 1895, and the judgment,as
it will be observed, was given and enter
ed against him on the 7th day Of August.
Less than than three weeks had then ex-
pired from the date Of said personal SER
vice. Tho contention of counsel for
petitioner is that the Justice acquired no
jurisdiction by such service Of the per-
son of the defendant in said action, the
petitioner here, and that by reason there
of the Justice exceeded his authority in
giving and entering said judgment
against him, AID therefore, that said
judgment is null and void. We agree
with counsel in this contention.
When a summons is to be served by
publication, or out Of the State, the time
mentioned in the summons for the ap-
pearance Of the defendant shall be not
less than six weeks nor more than four
months from the date Of the issuance Of
the summons. Section $780, General
Statutes.)"
When publication is ordered, personal
service of copy of the summons and
complaint oat of the State shall be equiv
alert to publication and deposit in the
shall be deemed complete in case of pub
licatien at the expiration of six weeks
from the first publication, and in case
where a deposit of a copy of the sum-
mons in the posto flee is also required, at
the ex piratlon Of six weeks iron, such
Deposit ga
We think ii evident from the above
a.
is not complete until at the expiration of
six weeks from the date of personal SER
/ vice out of the State, when such service
is nade in lieu of publication, or in lieu
Of publication and deposit in the post
office when such deposit is also required.
Until the service of the summons is
complete the Justice cannst acquire
jurisdiction Of the person of the defen-
dant, except by the voluntary appear
ance Of the defendant, and when he
enters judgment against a defendant by
default before the service is complete he
exceeds his jurisdiction and the judg
ment is void. No appeal lies from sucf
judgment and it may be annalled or
certiorari.
LltLle VS.. Nufrle, New. w
Roy vs. Whitferd. 9 New 80
Martin VS.. District Court, I3 New. 81
, Many other cases Of like import Nigh
be cited.
There are two other judgments invol
we'd in this proceeding entered by sale
| Justice against the petitioner, the de
PENDANT therein. One, in case of F. w
Day, Plaintiff, VS.. Zenas Pratt, Defen
dant, for the SUM of S3I 90 and costs
J The other in case of Otto Schulz, Plain
t tiff, against the same defendant for tn,
sum of S22.25 and costs. A copy of al
account was filed in each case for a com
/. plant. Also an order was made in eacl
: case for publication of sum mons, an
E publication was made ifer the require,
? time. The affidavitS for publication wer
1 similar to to the affidavit in the case frs
; above named. What was said wit
: reference to said affidavit is applicable t
each of the other two, and for the sam
e reason and upon the same authority w
: hold said affidavits we're sufficient t
: authorize publication of the summon.
Counsel contends that each of sal
judgments is void for the reason that
l. does not appear from the record that i
4 either case was there made deposit {
S the summons and complaint in the pest
It Office directed to the defendant at hi
y place Of residence, as required by Law
s The statute requires such deposit onl
# in case the place of residence of the d.
: PENDANT is known, The affidavit in eac
b of these two cases states that said Cd
70 PENDANT is a nonresident of this Stat
u but is resident of the State of Califo
d mia, County unknown We think sue
re affidavit is sufficient to show that the d
l. fendant resided out of the State (Furnis
VS.. Muller, rs Cal. 646.) and that his pla,
it of residence in California was unknov
t. to the affiant.
E. The copy of the summons and cor
plant are to be directed to the defenda
ID at his place Of residence out of the Sta
~ and deposited in the pcstcffice on
ell when such place of residence is know
or Compiled Laws, Sec. 3126.)
u In,the case of G.. f. Wylio and Ed.