Ejectment to recover a tract of land in Christian county. The answer admitted the possession, and denied all other facts.
The land was entered by plaintiff, which he showed and rested. Defendants introduced in evidence, in support of their title, a deed from the sheriff of the county, conveying the land to one W. R. Jones, and a deed from Jones to defendant Wilkinson. The other dеfendants were tenants of Wilkinson. The sheriff’s deed was under an execution sаle upon a judgment of the circuit court of Christian county against plaintiff, fоr delinquent taxes on the land for the years 1881, 1882, 1883.
The tax suit was brought to the Septеmber term, 1885, of said circuit court. At that term, a final judgment by default was rendered fоr $37.35, the amount of unpaid taxes; an order enforcing the lien of the state on the land in controversy, with other lands, was made, and special exеcution ordered. This judgment, which is the basis of defendants’ title, is attacked by plaintiff for want of jurisdiction of the person of John Laney, defendant therein.
Thе judgment contains the following recital: “Now, at this day, comes on to be heard this cause,
To overcomе this recital, plaintiff offered in evidence the original summons in the case, and the return of the sheriff thereto. The summons was in the usual form, and the return was аs follows: “Executed the within writ, in the county of Christian, on the fourth day of August, A. D. 1885, by delivering a certified copy of this writ and the petition to a member of John Laney’s family over the age of fifteen years.” It was also shown that, during the years 1884 and 1885, John Laney was a resident of Greene county.
Defendants objected to this evidence on the ground that the recitals of the judgment were conclusive, and could not be' contradicted or impeached collаterally. The objection was overruled. The court, trying the facts as a jury, declared the law to be that, under the •evidence, the finding should be for plaintiff, and so judgment was entered. Defendant appealed.
The servicе, as shown by the return of the sheriff, was not according to any method known to thе law, and was equivalent to no service at all. The third clause of section 3689, Revised Statutes, 1879, under which, doubtless, the service was attempted, required a copy of the petition and writ to be left “at the usual place of abode” of dеfendant, “with some person of his family over the age of fifteen years.” The service here provided is constructive, and must conform, at least, substantially to the requirements of the statute. Bank v. Suman,
It is insisted that the manner of service cannot be shown to contradict the recitals of the judgment. If the entry of the judgment upon the books of the court constituted all the record in the сase, the contention would have weight. That is not the case. The return
Since the decision in the case of Cloud v. Pierce City,
The service of process in this case was wholly insufficient and unauthorized by law, and, in consequenсe, the court never obtained jurisdiction of the person of defendant therein, and the judgment rendered was without validity, force or effect, and defendant acquired no title by the sale and sheriff’s deed thereunder. Judgment affirmed.