Boyle v. Oro Plata Min. & Mill. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 April 1913
• Docket Number: Civil 1221
• Citation: 14 Ariz. 484,131 P. 155
• Parties: JOHN BOYLE, Jr., Appellant, v. ORO PLATA MINING AND MILLING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

131 P. 155

14 Ariz. 484

JOHN BOYLE, Jr., Appellant, v. ORO PLATA MINING AND MILLING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee

Civil No. 1221

Supreme Court of Arizona

April 15, 1913

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, in and for the County of Mohave. Edward M. Doe Judge. Affirmed conditionally.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr John W. Lane, for Appellant.

Messrs Clark, Haworth & Stewart, for Appellee.

OPINION

CUNNINGHAM, J.

The appellee, as plaintiff, commenced this action to quiet its title to the Todd patented mining claim situated in Mohave county. The complaint is in the form usually adopted for that purpose. The appellant, as defendant, asserts ownership and possession, and bases his title upon a sheriff's deed made as a result of a sale to satisfy a tax lien and judgment in favor of the territory of Arizona against the appellee to one Dempsey, as purchaser, and by Dempsey assigned to appellant for a valuable consideration. The sheriff's deed is made direct to appellant as the holder of the assigned certificate of sale. Appellee attacks the judgment in the tax suit as void upon the grounds that the court rendering the judgment had acquired no jurisdiction of the judgment debtor, this appellee, for the reason that appellee was not served with process in that suit. In support of the contention, the appellee offered the sheriff's return on the summons appearing in the judgment-roll of the tax suit, which return shows that the summons was served upon the "defendant named in said summons by registered letter directed to the address of the president of said defendant, and by inclosing in said registered letter a copy of the summons to which was attached a true copy of the complaint mentioned in said summons, and that the registry return receipt signed by said defendant was returned to me by the post office . . . on the 20th day of August, 1908, and is hereto attached and made a part of this return." The registry receipt is addressed to H. J. Woolacott, at Los Angeles, Cal., signed by the same name, by W. P. Eaton as his agent, and returned to the sheriff.

It is alleged by the plaintiff and not denied by the defendant that appellee is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the territory of Arizona, and was such corporation at the dates mentioned in the tax suit. In order that jurisdiction may be acquired of a domestic corporation in a tax suit other than by a voluntary submission to jurisdiction, the corporation must be served with process by some method prescribed by law. Paragraph 1323, Revised Statutes of Arizona of 1901, prescribes a method of constructive service by which the summons may be served on the president, secretary, or treasurer, or any director of such corporation, or upon the local agent representing such corporation, in the county in which the suit is brought, or by leaving a copy of the summons at the principal office of the company during office hours. "Whenever any corporation incorporated under the laws of this territory does not have an officer in this territory upon whom legal service of process can be made, of which the return thereon shall be prima facie evidence, an action or proceeding against such corporation may be commenced in any county where the cause of action or proceeding may arise, or said corporation may have property; and service may be made upon such corporation by depositing a copy of the summons, writ or other process in the office of the secretary of the territory, which shall be taken, deemed and treated as personal service on such corporation. . . . Par. 1324, Rev. Stats., supra.

Process was served upon the president of the company by registered mail at the city of Los Angeles, state of California, in a manner provided for serving nonresident defendants. Par 1334, Rev. Stats. Ariz. 1901. The president of a corporation is not the corporation; neither is he a defendant by reason of the suit having been commenced against the corporation of which he is the president. His place of personal residence, for the purposes of a suit against the...