
    Bryant v. The State on the relation of Quigley.
    A sheriff’s return to a summons stated that he had served it by leaving a copy at the defendant’s “last place of residence.” Held, that the return, under the R. S. 1843, showed a sufficient service.
    ERROR to the Tippecanoe Probate Court.
    
      Friday, June 9.
    
    
      Z. Baird, for the plaintiff.
    
      J. Pettit and S. A. Huff, for the state.
   Davison, J.

Debt by the state on the relation of Quigley against Bryant, a surety upon an administrator’s bond. The following is the return of the sheriff to the original process in the cause: “ Served this writ on the within named Absalom Bryant, by leaving a copy at his last place of residence. January 23,1852.” Bryant having failed to appear, judgment was taken against him by default, and a jury was impanneled to assess the plaintiff’s damages. Final judgment for the plaintiff.

The objection to these proceedings is, that the sheriff’s return was not sufficient to authorize the default; that leaving a copy of the writ at Bryants last place of residence was not good service.

This is a mistake. A statute in force when this suit was commenced, provides, that when a summons is issued, “it shall be served either personally on the defendant or by leaving a copy thereof at his usual or last place of residence.” R. S. 1843, c. 40, s. 23. The return is in accordance with the statute.

Per Curiam, — The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.  