12 Minn. 80 | Minn. | 1866
By the Cou/rt
The defendant Russell made a motion in the Court below, to be relieved from a judgment entered against him in this action, on the ground that the- Court had no jurisdiction to render such judgment,
The first objection to the summons is based on the fact that the plaintiffs therein describe the Court as of the “ 3rd District Minnesota Territory.” This was error, Hennepin County then being in the fourth judicial district of the State; but the error did not make the summons void. The words objected to were unnecessary in the summons; without them the requirements of the ■ statute were complied with, and they may proqoerly be treated as surplusage. Their use could in no way mislead or prejudice the defendants. Our statute expressly provides that purely technical objections, like this, which'do not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party, shall be disregarded.
The second objection we do not think tenable. Admitting that a summons is process within the meaning of the Constitution, the want of the style prescribed would not make it absolutely void. It would be error, of which a defendant might' take advantage within the time, and in the manner designated by law. Parsons vs. Sweet, 32 N. H. Rep. 88, and cases there cited; Ilsley vs. Harris, 10 Wis. 100, and cases cited. But we think a summons is not process within the meaning of section fourteen article six of our State Constitution. It is merely a notice given by the plaintiff’s attorney to the defendant that
As to tbe second objection discussed in tbe foregoing opinion, I assent to tbe conclusion arrived at on tbe grdund that a summons is not “ process” within tbe meaning of tbe constitution. I concur in tbe disposition made of tbe first objection.