Coughran v. Germain

Citations

• 17 S.D. 529
• 97 N.W. 743
• 1903 S.D. LEXIS 88

Syllabus

<p>1. In a proceeding to set aside a judgment, it appeared that the two defendants were non-residents: that service had been by publication; that the cause of action was a joint and several note executed by defendants; that on affidavit and an order of court finding “that the defendants, or one of them,” had property in the jurisdiction of the court, the property had been attached and sold to satisfy the judgment. Both defendants joined in the motion to vacate the judgment, without offering any evidence as to the ownership of the property affected by the judgment, and there was nothing in or aliunde che record to contradict the finding of the court. Held, that the finding of the court was prima facie evidence that the defendants, or one of them, owned the property.</p> <p>2. Where defendants are jointly and severally liable on a note on, which judgment had been rendered against them in a state other than that of their domicile, service being by publication, making the validity of the judgment depend on the defendants having property in the jurisdiction of the court, a finding that “defendants, or one of them, has property within the jurisdiction of the court,” is sufficient to sustain the validity of the judgment. Corson, J. dissenting.</p>