Thomas v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1884

Thomas v. State, 62 Miss. 184 (Miss. 1884)

Arnold

Opinion of the Court

Arnold, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The scire facias was not served in either of the modes prescribed *186by the statute. Code, §§ 1527,1535. Under § 1528 of the Code of 1880, if it had been returned “executed” this would have-imported legal service of the writ in some one of the methods-provided by the statute. Heirmann & Kahn v. Stricklin et al., 60 Miss. 234. But the return shows what was done by the officer,, and that the statute was disregarded. There was substantial difference between reading the writ to the appellants, as was done, and delivering to them a true copy thereof, as was required to be done. French et al. v. The State, 53 Miss. 651.

Reversed and remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name: Henry Thomas v. State
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: Scibe Facias. Return of service by reading. Effect. A return on a scire facias, showing that the writ was “executed” by the officer “reading” it to the defendant, discloses a bad service, because not in any of the modes prescribed by the statute; though if all of such return, except the word “ executed ” had been omitted, it would have imported a legal service under $ 1528 of the Code of 1880.