This is an action to enjoin a judgment of a justice of the peace. The cоurt below found that there had been no personal service on the defendаnt and enjoined the judgment. It appears from the record that in December, 1888, Moore & Shipman were engaged in business on North Sixteenth street in the city of Omaha; thаt this store was in charge of Miss Allen; that on the 8th of that month a bill for merchandise for thе sum of $227.59, furnished by O. R. Tennis & Co., was presented to Moore & Shipman at their place of business; that no objection was made to the bill itself, but it was claimed by Mr. Moore that time had been given for a part of the ■ claim, and, therefore, he refused to pay the same. He’’ then drew a check in the name of Moore & Shipman in favor of himself for the sum of $69.85, and, with a Mr. Robertson,' who had the claim for collection, went to the bank and drew that sum and paid thе same; that Mr. Robertson notified Moore & Shipman that he understood the entire claim to be due and that he would bring suit for the remainder. There seems to have beеn an agreement that they would accept service. Mr. Robertson thereupon began an action for the balance of the account and took the summons to the store of Moore and Shipman and began to write an acceptance of service on the summons, when in consequence of somе statement of Mr. Moore he was induced to call an officer to serve thе summons. He found a constable at the door of the store and handed him the summons to serve, both Moore and
In a proper case a judgment will be enjoined where it was rendered against a defendant without servicе of process. (10 Am. Ency. of Law, 902.) In the case at bar, however, the evidence of want of service is not sufficient to overcome the return of the officеr, corroborated as it is, by circumstances. Thus it is clearly shown that both of the parties were in the store when the officer entered, and thus the opportunity of sеrvice was had, and the return of service made with a charge presumably for twо copies of the summons. The officer also was a witness and testified in this casе that he served the summons upon both defendants. To offset this we have the testimony оf
But there is another reasоn why the judgment should be revei’sed. The principal object of vacating a judgment is tо permit an opportunity for a full examination of the matters in controversy; thеrefore, if the defendant ask to have a judgment against him set aside, he must allege, and if necessary prove, that he has a valid defense to the action. In Gerrish v. Hunt,
Dismissed.