Case Name: JOHN FREDERICK vs. ANDREW F. CLARK
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1856
Citations: 5 Wis. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN FREDERICK vs. ANDREW F. CLARK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
JOHN FREDERICK vs. ANDREW F. CLARK.
CERTIORARI TO A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.
The service of a summons issued by a justice of the peace, by leaving a copy at the usual place of abode of the defendant, with one of his family of suitable age and discretion, is sufficient to give the justice jurisdiction.
The truth or falsity of an officer’s return cannot be inquired into upon common law ' certiorari.
A common law certiorari brings up the record merely, and only such questions as go to the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal will be considered.
Upon common law certiorari the court will not look into the evidence upon which the justice rendered judgment. If the latter had jurisdiction, it is sufficient.
This was a common law certiorari issued to a justice of tbe peace of Dane county. Tbe opinion of the court discloses sufficiently tbe case.
Hood, for the plaintiff in error.
Boys, for tbe defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Smith, J.
This is a common law certiorari issued to a justice of tbe peace of Dane county.
It appears by tbe return of tbe justice, that on tbe 29th day November, A. D..1854, be issued a summons at tbe suit of Andrew E. Clark against John Frederick, returnable December 11, 1854. Tbe summons was served by leaving a copy at tbe usual place of abode of tbe defendant, with one of bis family of suitable age and discretion, who was informed of its contents. This was sufficient to give tbe justice jurisdiction. If tbe officer made a false return, either originally, or by subsequent amendment, be is liable to the party injured, but tbe truth or falsity of his return cannot be collaterally inquired into in a proceeding like this.
It is contended by the plaintiff in this writ, that the justice erred in rendering judgment by default, without proof of the claim of the plaintiff below. This may be true, and at the proper time and in the proper mode the error might have been corrected. In the case of Roberts vs. Warren (3 Wis. R. 736), a-similar question was brought before us upon a proceeding like this, but it was held that we could not look into alleged errors cf this kind upon a common law certiorari. .
This writ brings up the record merely, and only such questions as go to the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal can be considered. As before remarked, we think that the return shows that the justice had jurisdiction, and the judgment, therefore, must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.