Case Name: Goodlove and another v. Gray
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1852
Citations: 7 Tex. 484
Docket Number: 
Parties: Goodlove and another v. Gray.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
Goodlove and another v. Gray.
Where a citation was issued, commanding the sheriff to cite the defendants by publication,, the sheriff made return: “ Came to hand January 4,1849. In obedience, I command this writ to be published.” Signed, C*A. J. Stevens, Sheriff VV. C.” Appended to tlie citation was an affidavit, purporting to be made by the publisher of a newspaper published in the county, stating that publication was made for eight successive weeks in said paper, in obedience to the requirements of the citation. There was judgment by default. Held, That the return was insufficient, and that the judgment should be reversed. (Note GO.)
Error from Walker. The appellee, a resident of tlie county of Walker, sued the appellants, non-residents, to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. A citation issued on the 3d day of January, 1849, commanding the sheriff to cite the defendants by publication, upon which tlie sheriff made tlie following return : “ Came to hand January 4,1849. In obedience, I command this writ to be published.” Signed, “A. J. Stevens, Sheriff W. C.” Appended to tlie citation was an affidaviCmade by tlie publisher of a newspaper published’ in tlie comity, stating that publication was made for eight successive weeks in. said paper, in obedience to the requirements of the citation.
The defendants not appearing', tlie cause was continued; and at a subsequent term, tlie defendants still failing to appear, there was judgment by default? and a jury was impaneled to assess tlie damages, who found a verdict for the plaintiff for one thousand dollars. Tlie defendants brought a writ of' error, and assigned as error, among other matters, that the defendants were not duly served with process.
II. N. %• M. M. Potter, for plaintiffs in error.
The citation does not show any legal service of the citation. (Ilart. Dig., arts. 679, 811, 2894.)
Returning officers are ministerial, and bound to set forth all acts done by them, that the court may judge of their sufficiency. And the time and manner of service must be set out in tlie return. (Derry v. Dover, 12 Pick. R., 206; Davis v. Maynard, 9 Mass. R., 242; De Leon v. Owen, 3 Tex. R., 153.)
Tlie objection to tlie pretended service may be taken on error. (Prosh v. Schlumpt, 2 Tex. R., 422.)
J. B. Jones, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Wheeler, J.
It is evident that tlie return of tlie sheriff is not in conformity to law. (Hart. Dig., arts. 811. 2894.) Tlie otity question is, whether the insufficiency of tlie return is cured by the affidavit attached to it. And we are of opinion that it is not. It is tlie mere ex parte affidavit of a stranger to* the record. It is not adopted or referred to by the officer in making his return, which is required to he signed by him officially. (Ib.) It constitutes no* part of tlie return ; is not embraced or referred to in the statement of facts-certified by the judge in obedience to the statute. (Hart. Dig., 782.) It is not authenticated, by his certificate or otherwise, in any manner which entitles it to be considered as a fact proved in the case.
In ex parte proceedings like the present, where the defendant has not had actual notice of the suit, the plaintiff must be held to a strict compliance with, every essential requirement of the law.
Note 06. — For examples of defective returas of service of process see Middleton v The Slate, 11 T., 255; Blossman v. Litehford, 17 047; Bartlett v. Winkler, 15 T., 516; Graves v. Robertson, 22 T., 130; Harta. Clifton, 19 T., 50; Underhill v. Lockett, 20 T., 130; Winans v. The State, 25 T. Supp., 175; Batey v. Dibrell, 23 T., 172; Allen v. Wyser, 29 T., 250; Clarke v. Wileox, 31 T., 322; Hill v. Grant, 33 T., 132; Bendy v. Boyce, 37 T.,443; Tullis v. Scott, 33 T.,537; Johnson v. Barthold, 43 T., 556.
We are of opinion that the sheriff's return is not in conformity to law; that it does not appear from the record that the defendants were duly served with process; and that the judgment he therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Judgment reversed.