237 N.W. 765 | S.D. | 1931
Plaintiff brought an action in the municipal court in the city of Sioux Falls, by the service of a money demand
First, we will consider the question presented by the return of service of summons, which return is part of the judgment roll. The fact has already been mentioned herein that the return of service was in the form of a certificate and signed as follows: “Sam N. Haggar, Constable, Minnehaha County, South Dakota.” This return was not verified and did not purport to be in the form of an affidavit. Section 2342, R. C. 1919, provides as follows:
“Proof of the service of the summons, and of the complaint or notice, if any, accompanying the same, must be as follows:
“1. If served by the sheriff, his certificate thereof; or,
“2. If by any other person, his affidavit thereof.”
This statute requires an affidavit of service unless the return is made by the sheriff. The judgment roll, including as it does this purported return of service, precludes this court from presuming that there was any other proof of service. Should we hold in this case, with this affirmative showing a part of the judgment roll, that the judgment entered was not subject to ’direct attack, we would nullify that provision of our statute requiring that the return of service, if not made by the sheriff, should be in the form of an affidavit.
Due to the fact that the order of the trial court setting the judgment aside must be affirmed for the reasons herein given, it is unnecessary to' discuss the question of laches.
The order appealed! from is affirmed.