Case Name: Baylor B. Barker et al. v. B. Harper Shepard, Administrator, Use, etc.
Court: High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1868-10
Citations: 42 Miss. 277
Docket Number: 
Parties: Baylor B. Barker et al. v. B. Harper Shepard, Administrator, Use, etc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 277–292

Head Matter:
Baylor B. Barker et al. v. B. Harper Shepard, Administrator, Use, etc.
1. Appearance: recital in the record. — A statement in the record, “that defendant appeared and withdrew his plea,” unaccompanied hy a plea, and not sustained hy any other part of the record, does not constitute an appearance for such defendant, and will not warrant a judgment against him where the return of the summons is not made in accordance with the requirements of the statute. Jeffords, J., dissenting.
Error to the Circuit Court of Monroe county. Hon. J. Milton Acker, judge.
On the 23d of April, 1860, defendant in error instituted his action against Hubbard Saunders, B. B. Barker, and B. M. Bradford. The summons was returned as to Saunders, “ not found; ” as to Barker, “ executed in person, and handed him a copy; ” as to Bradford, “ executed by leaving a copy at his residence.” At the November Term, 1860, the following entry appears:
“ B. H. Shepard, Administrator, Use, etc. v. B. B. Barker et al.
“ Came the plaintiff, and defendants, B. B. Barker andB. M. Bradford, by attorneys, and plaintiff dismissed this suit as to the defendant, Hubbard Saunders, as to whom the writ has not been executed; thereupon the other defendants withdraw their plea, and say nothing further in bar or preclusion of plaintiff’s action. It is therefore considered by the court, etc.” Immediately preceding this entry the following appears: “No plea on file or in the final record.’’
The suit is brought to this court by writ of error, and the errors assigned are: That the return of the process as to Bradford is defective, and the recital in the record does not constitute an appearance, and thereby cure the defect.
Houston (& Reynolds, for plaintiffs in error, contended:
1. The return of the sheriff as to defendant Bradford is insufficient: “Executed by leaving a copy at his place of residence.” Foster v. /Simmons, 40 Miss. Hep.; Merritt v. White, 37 Miss.
2. A judgment is an entire thing, and if reversible on account of a defective service or return of process as to one co-defendant, it is reversible as to all. Smith v. Rollins, 25 Mo. Bep. 408; Rush v. Rush, 19 ib. 441 •, 1 How. Miss. 333, 527; 2 ib. 786 ; 14 Johns. 424; 12 ib. 434; 5 Wend, 161; 29 Miss. Bep. 138-9.
3. The recital in the judgment “ that defendants withdrew their plea, and said nothing further in bar of the action,” is not conclusive, when it is affirmatively shown by the record that no plea was filed. Pounds v. Gartman, 29 Miss. Bep. 138-9 ; Miller v. Ewing, 8 S. & M. 421; Pittman v. Planters' Bank, 1 How. Miss. 530.
4. The recital,in the judgment that defendants appeared, is the act of the clerk, does not constitute an appearance for such defendants, and will not warrant a judgment against them. Miller v. Ewing, 8 S. & M. 421.
W. <& J. B. Merger for defendant in error.
There is no error in these records. The alleged error in service of process as to Bradford is cured by his appearance. The record of the judgment is in these words: “ Came the plaintiff by attorneys, and defendants, Baylor B. Barker and Benjamin M. Bradford, also by attorneys, and plaintiff dismissed this suit as to the defendant, Hubbard Saunders, as to whom the writ has not been executed. Thereupon the other defendants, withdraw their plea, and say nothing further in bar or preclusion of plaintiff’s action, etc.”
An appearance covers all defects in service of process, whether made in person or by attorney. Owin v. Williams, 27 Miss. Bep. 324.
The recital in the judgment of the appearance by defendants and withdrawal of their plea is conclusive, and is an estoppel of record, and this court will not go behind the entry of the judgment. It does not appear affirmatively, as suggested by counsel for plaintiffs in error, that no plea was filed for defendants. On the contrary, it appears affirmatively in the judgment of the court itself, that plaintiffs in error, being defendants below, entered their appearance by attorney, and withdrew their plea, etc.
The ease of Owin v. Williams, 27 Miss. Bep. 324, is directly in point. The court says in that case: “ It is manifest that the appearance of the defendant is not to be shown only by his plea, for he may appear and decline to plead, in which case the judgment is not one of default, but on appearance, and nil dicit. When the record shows that the defendant appeared to the action, the entry is not merely an unofficial act of the clerk, but a necessary and proper part of the record as made by the court, and must be taken as true. . . . "We are aware of no statute in this ease requiring pleas to be drawn up in writing. It is generally-required, as a matter of convenience, by the Circuit Courts, etc. .-. . In this case it appears by the record that the defendant appeared, etc.” The record in this case and the case above are not distinguishable on principle.

Opinion:
Peyton, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant- in error instituted suit in the Circuit Court of Monroe county against the plaintiffs in error and one Hubbard Saunders.
Upon the writ of 'summons the sheriff made the following return: " Came to hand, and executed on B. M. Bradford, by leaving a copy of this writ at his residence; also on B. B. Barker in person, and handed him a copy of this writ, May the 9th, 1860. Defendant Saunders is not to be found in my county, May the 9th, 1860."
At the November Term of said Circuit Court the cleifk made the following entry of judgment in this case: "Came the plaintiff by attorneys, and defendants, Baylor B. Barker and Benjamin M. Bradford, also by attorneys, and plaintiff dismissed this suit as to the defendant, Hubbard Saunders, as to whom the writ has not been executed; thereupon the other defendants withdraw their plea, and say nothing further in bar or preclusion of the plaintiff's action. It is therefore considered by the court that the plaintiff recover of the defendants, Benjamin M. Bradford and Baylor B. Barker, the sum of sixteen hundred and thirty-five dollars, the debt in the declaration mentioned; also the further sum of eighty-seven dollars and seventy-five cents, the damages sustained by reason of the detention of said debt, together with the costs in this behalf expended."
The plaintiffs prosecute this writ of error to reverse said judgment, and assign for error that the return of process as to Bradford is not sufficient to warrant a judgment against him.
There is no plea in the record for the plaintiffs in error, and the return of the service of process on B. M. Bradford is not in compliance with the requirements of the statute, and is clearly insufficient to authorize a judgment by default against him.
The only question for the consideration of this court is, whether the recital by the clerk before the entry of judgment, that the plaintiffs in error appeared by their attorneys and withdrew their plea, in the absence of any plea in the record, will constitute an appearance for the plaintiffs in error.
It is insisted by the counsel for the defendant in error that the recital in the record is sufficient evidence of the appearance of Bradford to uphold the judgment, and the ease of Gwin v. Williams is cited in support of that position.
We do not think that case sustains the position assumed by them. That was an action of ejectment, in which the record states that "Alexander Gwin, on his motion, was admitted to defend in the room of Richard Roe, and thereupon by his attorney comes and defends the wrong and injury, when, etc., and pleads the general issue, confessing lease, entry, and ouster, etc." This standing alone in the record would not have been sufficient evidence of Gwin's appearance to the action, but taken in connection with other parts of the record, which show that the defendant appeared and conducted the defence throughout by his attorney, offering instructions and making a motion for a new trial, it was sufficient evidence of his appearance. The record in that case shows that both parties were in court, and proceeded to the trial of the cause on an informal and defective plea, without any objection thereto by either party. Gwin v. Williams, 27 Miss. 324, 333.
The record of this case contains no plea whatever of any character. It contains the mere recital of an implied fact, which is contradicted by the record. If the plaintiffs in error appeared as the recital states, it must have been by plea, and that should appear in the record, notwithstanding the recital states that they withdrew their plea. A plea, when filed among the papers in a cause, cannot itself be withdrawn from the file, except by leave of the court, and that should appear in the record. The phrase, withdraw a plea, means in legal contemplation to withdraw or waive the defence set up in the plea, and not to abstract the plea itself from tbe file; that remains on file, and constitutes a part of the record in the case.
Although it maybe conceded that there was no statute of this State prior to 1857 which required pleas to be in writing, yet, by a long and well-settled practice, the pleadings in a cause in any superior court of this State, proceeding according to the course of the common law, have always been required to be drawn up in writing, independently of any statutory regulation upon the subject.
Even under the ancient practice in England, when pleadings were delivered orally by the parties or their attorneys in open court, in the presence of the judges, they were contemporaneously reduced to writing by an officer of the court, and together with a short notice of the nature of the action, the time of the appearance of the parties in court, and the acts of the court itself during the progress of the pleading, constitute the record of the case. Stephen on Pleading, 25. And by the modern practice in that country, which dispenses with the actual presence in open court, the appearance of the .defendant is effected by making a certain formal entry in the proper office of the court, expressing his appearance; or, in case of arrest, it may be considered as effected by giving bail to the action. On the part of the plaintiff. no formality expressive of appearance is observed, but upon' the appearance of the defendant both parties are considered as in court. As the pleadings have long since ceased to be delivered orally in open court, they are drawn up in writing in the first instance. Stephen, on Pleading, 26. It thus appeal's that from an early period in the English jurisprudence to the present time, the pleadings have been.reduced to writing, and constitute an. essential part of the record.
'The statute provides that all pleadings shall be signed by the party or his attorney. Revised Code, 496, art. 115.
This court has repeatedly decided that a mere recital in the record by the clerk, in the absence of a plea for defendants, " that the defendants appeared by attorney," will not constitute an appearance for those not legally served with process, and will not warrant a judgment against them. Pittman v. Plant ers' Bank, 1 How. 527; Dean v. McKinstry, 2 S. & M. 213; Edwards v. Toomer, 14 S. & M. 75; Miller v. Ewing, 8 S. & M. 421; Schirling v. Scites, MS.
In the ease of Steele v. Palmer, MS., this court decided that a recital in the record, that " the defendant demurred, to the evidence," without any demurrer appearing in the record, is insufficient to support a judgment overruling such demurrer.
In the case of Moores v. Parker, 3 Littell, 263, in which there were two defendants, and only one of them served with process, and judgment was rendered against both of them without any appearance or plea, the court says: " It is true the record recites that the parties came by their attorneys. But such a recitation on the record, we think, ought not to be construed into an appearance of the defendant not served with process."
And again, in the case of Hall v. Williams & Fiske, in which process had not been served on Fiske, it was held by the court that a recital by the clerk before the entry of the judgment, stating that c! Williams & Fiske came by their said attorney," could not'be taken to be an assertion of record that " Fiske appeared to the action," in the absence of a plea for him. 6 Pick.
The mere statement in the record of this case by the clerk, unaccompanied by a plea, and not sustained by any other part of the record, is deemed wholly insufficient to authorize a judgment against Bradford.
This view of the case accords with the previous adjudications of this court upon the subject, and we think it safer to adhere to them.
To give absolute verity to mere recitals in the record by the clerk, often made inadvertently, cúrrente calamo, and without due consideration of the facts of the case, would be productive of much mischief and injustice.
Let the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded.