Case Name: Thompson, &c., v. Moore
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1891-01-08
Citations: 91 Ky. 80
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thompson, &c., v. Moore.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 80–82

Head Matter:
Case 13 — PETITION EQUITY —
January 8, 1891.
Thompson, &c., v. Moore.
APPEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.
1. Parol authority is not sufficient to authorize a special bailiff to serve a summons, and no subsequent authority hy the sheriff, although in -writing, can make such a service valid. Therefore, it was error to allow the sheriff, after judgment, to indorse upon the summons a written authority to the special bailiff to execute it, it having been executed pursuant to a mere parol authority; and such indorsement did not make the service valid.
2. A special bailiff having made a return of “ not found” upon a summons which he was authorized in writing to execute, his power was exhausted, and a new power in writing was necessary to authorize him to serve an alias summons.
3. It was proper to allow the sheriff to amend his return upon the summons after judgment, even as against infant defendants, for the purpose of showing the facts as to the mode of service.
4. Appearance Entered by Appealing from Void Judgment.— Although the judgment against appellant was void because lie bail not been served with process, he should, upon the return of the case, be regarded as before the court without an additional summons.
EDWARD W. HINES for appellants.
In the absence of an indorsement on the summons conferring authority, service by a special bailiff is void, and can not be made valid by a subsequent indorsement on the summons.
There must be a strict compliance with the statute providing for service of summons by a special bailiff. (Simms, &c., v. Simms, &c., 88 Ily., 642.)
J. H. POWER OF COUNSEL ON SAME SIDE.
R. GUDGELL fob appellee.
It is the right and duty of the sheriff to amend an erroneous return upon process. (Civil Code, secs. 47, 49; Armstrong, &c., v. Easton, 1 B. M., 66; Newton v. Prather, 1 T)uv., 102.)

Opinion:
JUDGE PRYOR
delivf.red the opinion of the court.
This was an action to enforce a lien upon land, resulting in a judgment by default that is now sought to be set aside for the want of service of process on the defendants. - On the motion to set aside the judgment the officer was allowed to amend his return as to the mode of service on the infant defendants, and it appearing by the amended return that he had delivered a copy to each one of the infants (they being-over fourteen years of age) in time for j udgment, that error in the proceeding was cured.
As to the appellant, Thompson, it appears that the sheriff had, by an indorsement on the summons, authorized a special bailiff to execute it as provided by subsection 2, section 47, Carroll's Civil Code. That summons had been returned by the special bailiff not found as to Sherman Thompson, when an alias summons issued, and was served by the same bailiff without any indorsement by the sheriff giving this special deputy the power to execute it. The power to serve had been exhausted by the deputy after his return on the original summons not found as to Sherman Thompson, and a new power had to be given authorizing him to serve the alias summons. This was not done, and yet the sheriff was permitted to amend what is called his return by making the indorsement on the alias summons after the judgment had been rendered. The sheriff was not, in fact, amending his return, but was attempting, after judgment, to confer a power in order that it might relate back, so as to make an illegal service effectual. If the special deputy, acting under a parol authority, had no right to serve the summons, no subsequent authority by the sheriff could make such a service valid. The Code, in this regard, must be followed, and no parol authority ought to be held sufficient to authorize a special bailiff to execute the summons.
It is insisted by counsel for the appellee that the record shows the loss of an alias summons, on which the indorsement was made and summons had, and that the indorsement on the alias is but a copy of that lost summons that was, in fact, served. The record shows that this is not the true state of case, as is apparent from the certificate of the clerk on the return of the certiorari.
The judgment is reversed, and remanded with directions to set aside the judgment, and for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties must now be regarded as before the court, without an additional summons.