Commercial Credit Co., Inc. v. Cook

• Decision Date: 24 October 1932
• Docket Number: 30182
• Citation: 143 So. 863,164 Miss. 725
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO., INC., v. COOK et al

143 So. 863

164 Miss. 725

COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO., INC., v. COOK et al

No. 30182

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 24, 1932

(Division B.)

1. EQUITY. In attachment in chancery, allegation that principal defendant was Louisiana corporation with principal place of business in New Orleans held not to authorize decree pro confesso (Code 1930, sections, 177, 2972).

Such allegation did not authorize decree pro confesso under Code 1930, section 177, since it could not be assumed thereunder that the post office address of defendant was New Orleans and the street address of such defendant nowhere being given, either in the bill or in any separate affidavit, and there being no allegation that after diligent search and inquiry such address could not be ascertained, as required by Code 1930, section 2972.

2 EQUITY.

Strict observance of statutes in matter of service of process by publication is necessary to render decree pro confesso valid.

3 EQUITY.

Final decree in attachment in chancery is void where no jurisdiction to proceed to final decree has been acquired either by appearance of, or valid process of publication upon, principal and nonresident defendant.

Division B

APPEAL from circuit court of Newton county.

HON. D. M. ANDERSON, Judge.

Attachment in chancery court by J. B. Cook and others against the Commercial Credit Company, Inc. From the judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Chambers & Trenholm, of Jackson, for appellant.

The decree pro confesso and final decree against the nonresident defendant, and the decree denying the claim of appellant, were void and of no effect.

There was no consent by the nonresident defendant, it having neither been served with process nor appeared.

E. R. Wall, of Newton, for appellees.

The nonresident defendant had been brought in as the law directs by the proper publication of the process.

OPINION

Griffith, J.

This case is an attachment in chancery. The principal defendant is alleged in the bill to be a corporation of the state of Louisiana, and that its principal place of business is in New Orleans in said state. Even if it might be assumed, under such an allegation, and we think it cannot in matter of law be so assumed (Hume v. Inglis, 154 Miss. 481, 122 So. 535), that the post office address of said defendant is New Orleans, the street address of said principal defendant is nowhere given either in the bill or in any separate affidavit, nor is there any...