Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Brown v. C. H. Butterworth & Co. 21 Del. 151

← Cases

Brown v. C. H. Butterworth & Co.

21 Del. 151 5 Penne. 151 Court Superior Court, Kent County, Decision date 1904-10-31 Docket No. 42 English

Delivered by Lore, C. J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 151
Abraham N. Brown and Alice R. Brown, d. b., vs. C. H. Butterworth and Company, p. b.

Headnote

Certiorari—Justice of Peace—Return of Service ; Verification of— What is Sufficient.
Where the record of the Justice states that the service was verified according to law, it is not necessary that it should be upon the back of the writ, when there is nothing to show that it was not verified according to law.
(October 31, 1904.)
Arley B. Magee for plaintiff in error.
Robert U. Van Dyke for defendant in error.
Superior Court, Kent County,
October Term, 1904.
Certiorari
(No. 42 same term).
The following exception was filed to the record: “ For that as appears from the record and proceedings, the said defendants below, plaintiffs in error, did not appear at the hearing of said cause; the judgment was rendered against them by default and the return of the service was not first verified by the constable’s affidavit in writing as by law required, before the rendering of judgment.”

The record says the service was verified according to law. We do not think that it is necessary that it should be upon the back of the writ. There is nothing to show that it was not verified according to law.

Let the judgment below be affirmed.