
    J. H. Tuller, Plaintiff in Error, vs. J. Y. Caldwell et al., Defendants in Error.
    WRIT 03? ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR RAMSEY COUNTY.
    A complaint in an action was left with the Defendant on the 10th of May, 1858. On the 10th of June thereafter a summons in the same action was served upon him, requiring him to answer the complaint, a copy of which was thereiuith served upon him; but no copy of the complaint did in fact accompany the summons: Held — that the action was not properly commenced, and that the Court had acquired no jurisdiction of the Defendant; that the summons should designate with unerring certainty what the Defendant is required to answer, and if the process served makes it doubtful or uncertain, the Defendant is entitled to the benefit of the uncertainty.
    The record shows that a swmmons, which required the Defendant to “answer the complaint in the action, a copy of which is herewith served upon you,” &c., &c., was served upon the Defendant, on the 10th J%me, 1858, and the complaint was served upon him on the 6th day of May, 1858. Judgment was entered upon default of an answer, and the Defendant reviews the same by "Writ of Error.
    The following are the points and authorities relied on by the Counsel for the Plaintiff in Error:
    
      JBvrsi. — The District Court erred in giving judgment in this action because it had not jurisdiction of the person of the Defendant.
    
      Second. — Because the summons was issued out of a Court whose powers and whose existence had ceased long before the service of the summons,
    
      
      Third. — The action was not legally commenced, because the summons is “process,” and must be in the style, “The State of Minnesota.” Constitution of the, State of Minnesota, Art. VI, Seo. 14; Blanoha/rd vs. Strait, 8 IIow. Pr. B. 84; McCrane vs. Moulton, 3 Sanford 736.
    
    
      Fourth. — The summons is but the mandate of the Attorneys for the Plaintiff, without showing or naming any authority to call the Defendant into any Court in this State.
    
      Fifth. — The judgment is erroneous because the Court had noc jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit.
    
      Sixth. — The Court had no jurisdiction to try said action, and where the record shows the fact it is error for the Court to give judgment. Bev. Stat. of Mirm., Chap. 70. Seo. 39, subdi/v. 4.
    
      Seventh. — If the summons were sufficient to bring the Defendant into Court, still the judgment is erroneous, because the complaint on file is not a complaint in this action, nor in any action in the Court rendering the judgment; but in a cause in another jurisdiction begun long befóle this action was commenced.
    
      Eighth — It is error to enter a judgment without declaration filed. Hardy vs. Moore, 3 Har. & MoHen. (U. S. Pig., Vol. 2,p. 165, Seo. 172 ;) Bowie vs. State, 3 Har. & MoHen. 408, {P. S. Pig., Vol. 2, p. 165, Seo. 172.)
    
    [The points and authorities of Defendants in Error are not on file.]
    S. P. Jennison, Counsel for Plaintiff in Error.
    Smith & Gilman, Counsel for Defendants in Error.
   By the Court

— Emmett, C. J.

A copy of the complaint simply was left with the Defendant in the original action, on the 10th day of May, 1858. On the 10th of June thereafter the summons was served on him, containing a notice that unless he answered the complaint in said action, a copy of which was therewith served upon him, within twenty days, tbe Plaintiff would apply to tbe Court for tbe relief demanded in tbe complaint. No copy of any complaint did in fact accompany tbe summons. Tbe Defendant paid no attention to tbe matter, and judgment, as for want of an answer, was entered against bim on tbe 19tb day of August, 1858.

We think tbis action was not properly commenced. Tbe statute contemplates either tbe service of a copy of tbe complaint at tbe time tbe summons is served, or that tbe complaint should be on file in tbe Clerk’s office, and a notice of that fact stated in tbe summons. It at least requires that, in whatever way a copy of tbe complaint may legally be served, tbe summons should . designate with unerring certainty what tbe Defendant is required to answer.

In tbis particular case tbe Defendant may possibly have supposed that tbe copy referred to in tbe summons, was the copy which bad been left with bim some four or five weeks before tbe summons was served, yet as tbe summons distinctly directed bis attention to a copy therewith served, be might well have been puzzled to know what was referred to, and be is entitled to tbe benefit of tbe doubt.

Tbe District Court not having acquired jurisdiction, tbe judgment must be reversed with costs.  