Drake

— The plaintiff and defendants both claim title to the premises in controversy under Thomas Dorland; the latter, under a foreclosure sale and sheriff’s deed, and the former, under a conveyance from Dorland, made more than ten years thereafter. At the trial, the defendants put in evidence the judgment-roll in the foreclosure suit, which was objected to by the plaintiff, on the ground that it affirmatively appeared therefrom that Dorland was not served with process and did not appear in said action; and consequently, that the court did not acquire jurisdiction of his person, and the judgment was therefore void as to him. The court, how *679 ever, admitted the record in evidence and entered a judgment for the defendants, from which, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, the plaintiff appeals. The principal question in the case is, whether or not it sufficiently appears in the judgment-roll in the foreclosure case that the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of Dorland. The proof of service upon him, as found in the judgment-roll, consists of the affidavit of one Comstock, in which he states that he “personally served a copy of the summons in this action on the…

PETITION EOR REHEARING.

See Drake v. Duvenick, 45 Cal. 455 .

— -We might well have declined to consider the plaintiff’s petition for a rehearing, on account- of its indecorous tone. But construing the offensive language as indicating an apparent ignorance of professional decorum, rather than an intentional disrespect to the court, we have considered the petition; and entertaining some doubt on the points discussed, we deem it better that the cause should be reargued.

Rehearing granted.