Spencer

The defendant claims that the decree in the foreclosure suit is void, because it appeal's from the return of the Sheriff that no copy of the complaint was served with the summons on Spencer, one of the defendants therein. There were, however, three defendants to that action, to wit, Robert W. Spencer, John Doe, and Richard Roe. Three persons were sued, and the circumstance that the real names of two of them were unknown to plaintiff, and that they were designated by fictitious names, did not reduce the number of defendants. The Practice Act of 1851, as amended in 1860, provided: “ If there be more than one defendant in the action, and such defendants reside within the county, a copy of the complaint need be served on only one of the defendants.” If there was service of a copy of the complaint on either of the other defendants, the service of summons on Spencer (if in other respects a good service) was sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction. The transcript does not show affirmatively that there was no service of the complaint on another defendant, but if it did, this would be but irregularity. The defendant knew from the summons that he was impleaded with others, and that either…