Knight v. Odell

I am inclined to concur in the foregoing opinion. The person serving the process, though not in name, is, in fact, for the purposes of the cause, a constable. The same objections really exist to his appearing and advocating at the trial as to an ordinary officer. Besides the statute says (§ 272), that he "shall be subject to the same obligations,” which, I think, ought to be construed to include disabilities.

I see no cause for reversing this j udgment, unless it be that the attorney for the plaintiff served the summons, being specially deputized for that purpose. This, I am rather of opinion, is within the spirit of the statute, which forbids the constable who serves the summons to appear as counsel on the trial.

*282I think the county court and justice’s judgment must be reversed.