
    Samuel B. Bancroft, Plaintiff in Error, v. Thomas Speer, Defendant in Error.
    ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OE CHICAGO.
    The sheriff’s return on a summons against Samuel B. Bancroft, was as follows: “ Served the within bv reading the same to and in the hearing of S. B. Bancroft June 21, 1858.”
    This is insufficient. It does not show whether the date refers to the time of the service or of the return. Nor does it show that service was made on Samuel B. Bancroft. S. B. may be the initials of a different person.
    
      This case was reversed on the ground of an insufficient return, by the sheriff. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. .
    Gallup & Hitchcock, for Plaintiff in Error.
    T. L. Dickey, and M. R. M. Wallace, for Defendant in Error.
   Walker, J.

The return to this summons is this: Served the within by reading the same to and in the hearing of S. B. Bancroft, June 21,1858.” It fails to specify whether the date is designed to indicate the day it was served or returned. In this it was insufficient. Ogle v. Coffey, 1 Scam. 239. This return also fails to show that the summons was served on the defendant. The officer returns that he served it upon S. B. Bancroft, but fails to say that he was the person named in the summons, and we know that these initials may as well apply to other names as that of Samuel B.,” and we know of nothing by which we can determine that they were designed for the defendant’s name, and the officer has failed to return that it was so intended. Had he returned that he had served it on the within named defendant, or employed any language from which we could have seen that such was the fact, the return would have been sufficient. But it was insufficient to warrant the rendition of a judgment, and it must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  