Case Name: Waterman & Katz vs. Arthur Phinney
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1873-12
Citations: 1 Wash. Terr. 415
Docket Number: 
Parties: Waterman & Katz vs. Arthur Phinney.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Territory Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 415–415

Head Matter:
Waterman & Katz vs. Arthur Phinney.
Service of the notice of taking writ of error upon “A. Pliinney” does not well show a service upon the defendant, Arthur Phinney.
The return should show that service was had in the county of the sheriff making service.
Error to Third District holding terms at Port Townsend.
Jolm P. Judson for plaintiffs in error.
McPfOAiglit da Leary for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Greene, Associate Justice.
Concerning this motion to dismiss, we are agreed, that the sheriff's return in the notice of filing the precipe is bad. The return of service upon "A. Phinney" simply does not well show a service upon the defendant Arthur Phinney.
We are also agreed, that the return should show that service was had within the county of the sheriff. Put we are not prepared to unite in opinion, that the return of service as had at Port Ludlow does not sufficiently certify it as had in Jefferson county.
To the other point, made by the defendant on this motion, the opinion of the court is opposed.
Motion allowed.
Jacobs, C. J., on account of sickness was not in attendance at this term.