94 F.2d 184 (4th Cir. 1938), 4237, Reynolds v. Dorrance

Docket Nº:4237.
Citation:94 F.2d 184
Party Name:REYNOLDS v. DORRANCE et al.
Case Date:January 04, 1938
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 184

94 F.2d 184 (4th Cir. 1938)

REYNOLDS

v.

DORRANCE et al.

No. 4237.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

January 4, 1938

Page 185

Virgil P. Randolph, Jr., of Richmond, Va. (Sinnott & May, of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellant.

J. Randolph Tucker, of Richmond, Va. (Bernard Mahon, of Bowling Green, Va., and Dave E. Satterfield, Jr., of Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.

NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judge.

These are actions at law instituted by notices of motion for judgment brought by William Dorrance and Edward Strong, appellees, here referred to as the plaintiffs, in the circuit court of Caroline county, Va., on June 24, 1935, against John Franklin Reynolds, the appellant, here referred to as the defendant. The plaintiffs are residents of the state of New York and the defendant is a resident of the state of North Carolina. The object of the actions was to recover damages for personal injuries resulting to the plaintiffs from an automobile accident alleged to have occurred in said county of Caroline, Va., on June 29, 1934, on a road known as United States Highway No. 1.

Pursuant to section 2154(70), subsection (i), of the Virginia Code 1936, which makes the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles of Virginia statutory agent for nonresidents for service of process in actions against them growing out of automobile accidents occurring in Virginia, counsel for the plaintiffs left notices of motion for judgment at the office of the director on June 24, 1935, which notices were made returnable on August 12, 1935. Counsel for the plaintiffs had been given the wrong address of the defendant in North Carolina and, in turn, the director was given the defendant's wrong address. The following day, June 25, the notices, as required by section 2154(70), subsec. (i), were sent to Salemburg, N.C., which was not the defendant's address. The notices were returned to the director, undelivered, on July 12th or 13th. On July 15, the director notified the plaintiffs' counsel of this fact, and on July 20 plaintiffs' counsel telephoned the director the defendant's correct address. New notices were sent that day by the director to the defendant at Clinton, N.C., where they were received by him on July 22, 1935.

The original notices of motion were sent by the director on or about June 25, to the clerk of the circuit court of Caroline county who received and filed them on June 26. At the same time, together with them, he also sent to the clerk of the circuit court of Caroline county his affidavits that copies of the notices of motion were sent by registered mail to the defendant at Salemburg, N.C.

On July 20, 1935, after the correct address of the defendant had been given the director, new affidavits...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP