Affirming.
The principal question involved on this appeal is *Page 719 whether the appellant, N.N. Pardue, was served with a summons in an action instituted by the appellees, Fred Proffitt and Gid Hollingsworth, against Mr. Pardue and his son, N.K. Pardue, on a check which had been given by the latter to the plaintiffs in the original action in payment for cattle and which was returned because of insufficient funds. The return on the summons is as follows:
"Executed the within summons by delivering a true copy to each of the following defendants, N.N. Pardue, N.K. Pardue not found. This 3/11/46.
"B.Y. Spillman, Sheriff of Barren County." On April 17, 1946, a default judgment was rendered against the appellant. He was present in court at that time, but said he knew nothing of the action and was there for another purpose. On June 4, 1946, an execution was levied on certain real estate and a Ford automobile belonging to the appellant. Shortly thereafter he filed this action to enjoin the sheriff of Barren County from selling the property upon which levy had been made on the ground that he had never been summoned in the original action. After hearing proof the court dismissed his petition; hence this appeal.
The record shows that the clerk issued the summons and placed it in the hands of the sheriff, along with a notice for Mr. Pardue and his son to take their depositions as if upon cross-examination. A deputy sheriff testified that he delivered a copy of both the summons and the notice to Mr. Pardue shortly after dark on March 3, 1946, and that when he returned to the sheriff's office he asked the sheriff to write out the return, which he did. As we have noted, the return was complete in every respect. Mr. Pardue testified that the deputy sheriff gave him only a copy of the notice, and at no time was he served with summons. He said also that the officer told him it was a summons to appear before Judge Redford, attorney for the plaintiffs in the original action, "on Saturday at one o'clock." Mrs. Pardue said that, when her husband came in the house after talking with the deputy sheriff, he showed her the notice to take depositions but had no copy of the summons. A banker testified that Mr. Pardue showed him the notice but that he did not see a copy of the summons. As we have noted, *Page 720 Mr. Pardue was present when the default judgment was entered, but he said that he was in the court room for another purpose, and also that he came to Glasgow in response to his notice to take depositions.
KRS
Judgment affirmed.
Judge Latimer not sitting.
