| Or. | Sep 15, 1863
Upon a bill and notice of suit filed in the Circuit Court for Douglas county, there was a return of service as follows:
“ I hereby certify that I served this bill and notice, by leaving two copies of said bill and notice at the dwelling house of Daniel Carland in Douglas county with a young white man, residing with the family, over the age of fourteen years, with a request that he hand them to Mr. Carland and Mrs. Carland.
“ October 29th, 1861.
“ John Eullerton, Sheriff.”
There was also a recital in the proceedings of the court of an order directing reference to a master, as follows : “ And it appearing that the respondents have been duly served with notice of this proceeding, and a copy of .the bill, etc.” It is also admitted that the original notice, if any there were, has been lost, so that no copy thereof, or other indication of existence appears here. Upon this record and admission, we are asked to reverse the action of the Circuit Court, and two questions are urged by plaintiffs in error.
2d. With such a return by Fullerton, and a full recital of proper service of bill and notice, and of default of defendants, is it sufficient to conclude the parties now ?
In reference to the first point our attention is called to two positions : That there was no sufficient service ; and that no proper person certifies to the service. The Statutes of 1855; page 86, section 29, clause 5, provides “in all other cases to defendant personally, or if he be not found to some white person of the family, above the age of fourteen years, at the dwelling house, or usual place of abode of the defendant.” It is eminently proper that all reasonable steps are to. be taken to bring to the notice of a defendant that proceedings have been instituted against him in a court, and I think it equally proper to hold, that when there has been a substantial compliance with statutory requirements as to service, parties should be required to answer, or be subjected to the burdens of a default. In this case every requisite was literally complied with, except as to the relation sustained by the person with whom the papers were left. The words in the Statutes are: “ of the family,” and those in the service are: “ residing with the family.” It would certainly be true that one residing with a family would constitute a member of the household, and for all purposes required for service of such papers, we think he would be of the family, and that the service in this respect would be sufficient. Again, this cause was.entitled of Douglas county, addressed to the judge of the proper court of that county, and the return embraces among its certified facts, that service was made at the dwelling house of Carland “ in Douglas county,” and is then signed by John Fullerton, sheriff. It is not beyond any reasonable’presumption for a court to hold that no other than the sheriff of Douglas county was the person making that certificate. With the return, and the officer before it, the Circuit Court found that said Fullerton was the proper officer; and in view of the facts
Decree is affirmed.