Coughran v. Markley
Decision Date | 10 July 1901 |
Citation | 87 N.W. 2,15 S.D. 37 |
Parties | COUGHRAN v. MARKLEY et ux. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Lincoln county; Joseph W. Jones, Judge.
Action by E. W. Coughran against Michael M. Markley and wife. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and a motion by defendants to set it aside. From an order denying the motion defendants appeal. Affirmed.
H. H Potter, for appellants. Bailey & Voorhees, for respondent.
In this action to determine conflicting claims to certain realty, the summons was served by publication, defendants did not appear and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Eight years later defendants moved to have the judgment set aside on the ground that it was rendered without jurisdiction, the motion was denied, and they appealed. The order directing service by publication was based upon the following affidavit, to which was attached, as a part thereof, a copy of the complaint:
It is contended by defendants that the court erred in denying defendants' motion, for the following reasons:
Where the subject of the action is real or personal property in this state, and the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, therein, or the relief demanded consists wholly or partly in excluding the defendant from any interest or lien therein, and the defendant cannot after due diligence, be found within the state, and that fact appears by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court or a judge thereof, and it in like manner appears that a cause of action exists against the defendant, such court or judge may grant an order that the service be made by the publication of a summons. In case of publication, the court or judge must also direct a copy of the summons and complaint to be forthwith deposited in the post office, directed to the person to be served, at his place of residence, unless it appear that such residence is neither known to the party making the application, nor can with reasonable diligence be ascertained by him. When publication is ordered, personal service of a copy of the summons and complaint out of the state is equivalent to publication and deposit in the post office. Comp. Laws, § 4900. On the theory that the residence of the defendants was unknown, and could not with reasonable diligence be ascertained, copies of the summons and complaint were not directed to be deposited in the post office. Under such circumstances, the probability of actual notice to defendants is so slight that justice demands a strict compliance with the statute. Judgments which exclude persons from any interest in or lien upon land should not be rendered without actual notice, when by the exercise of reasonable diligence actual notice can be given. There should be either actual notice, or an honest and reasonable effort to give it. The statute contemplates, and trial judges should invariably require, that the party who institutes the suit shall in good faith make every reasonable effort to not only ascertain that the defendant cannot be served in the state, but to ascertain his whereabouts, in order that copies of the summons and complaint may reach him through the mails or otherwise. When such an effort has been made, competent evidence of what has been done should be presented to the court or judge by affidavit. Facts within the personal knowledge of the affiant, not conclusions, opinions, or beliefs, should be stated. It is not enough to state the ultimate fact in the language of the statute. Competent evidence should be produced by affidavit alone from which the court or judge can judicially determine whether reasonable diligence has been exercised. Bothell v. Hoellwarth, 10 S.D. 491, 74 N.W. 231; Territory v. Taylor, 1 Dak. 479, 482, Append. The statute on this subject is plain. Compliance with its provisions is not difficult. It is a serious matter to vacate judgments upon which substantial rights have been based in good faith, and it is equally serious to deprive persons of valuable property without notice. In every case involving the validity of orders for publication which has reached this court, all doubt might have been avoided by careful...
To continue reading
Request your trial