Creadick v. Keller
Decision Date | 27 May 1932 |
Citation | 160 A. 909,35 Del. 169 |
Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Parties | CARLTON E. CREADICK v. ANDREW E. KELLER and ANNA v. KELLER, who were sued with COLONIAL STAGES EAST, INC |
Superior Court for New Castle County, No. 12, January Term 1932.
Case heard on motion of the defendants' attorney to quash the return of the Sheriff on the writ of summons.
The motion to quash the service in the present case is refused.
W Thomas Knowles for plaintiff.
James M. Malloy for defendants, appeared specially.
OPINION
In this case objection is made to the service of process and it is based on the plaintiff's failure to file with his declaration a return receipt signed by the defendant upon receiving by registered mail from the plaintiff a copy of the process and notice of its service.
The statute, Chapter 225, Vol. 35, Laws of Delaware, provides that
It is argued that the service is incomplete and invalid because the defendant's return receipt was not filed as required by the statute. But it does appear from plaintiff's affidavit and is not denied, that the defendants were non-residents and that the plaintiff sent to each of the defendants by registered mail a copy of the process, with notice of service. It further appears from the affidavit and envelopes attached thereto that a letter containing the required information was sent by registered mail to each of the defendants, at their correct address, to be delivered to addressees only; that a return receipt was requested; that said letters were delivered to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wise v. Herzog
...Wax v. Van Marter, 124 Pa.Super. 573, 577, 189 A. 537, 539. 26 Wax v. Van Marter, 124 Pa.Super. 573, 189 A. 537; Creadick v. Keller, 5 W.W.Harr. 169, 35 Del. 169, 160 A. 909; Cherry v. Heffernan, 132 Fla. 386, 182 So. 427; State ex rel. Charette v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 1......
-
Nikwei v. Ross School of Aviation, Inc.
...the defendant could, by his own wilful act, or refusal to act, prevent the plaintiff from maintaining his action." Creadick v. Keller, 35 Del. 169, 160 A. 909, 909 (1932). Thus, courts view service by registered or certified mail as being complete when such is refused though the act of the ......
-
Merriott v. Whitsell
...act or refusal to act on the part of the defendant would create an intolerable situation and should not be permitted. Creadick v. Keller, 35 Del. 169, 160 A. 909 (1932); Cherry v. Heffernan, 132 Fla. 386, 182 So. 427 (1938). See also, Lendsay v. Cotton, 123 So.2d 745, 95 A.L.R.2d 1029 (Fla.......
-
Cherry v. Heffernan
... ... State ex rel. Palmer v. Gray, 92 Fla. 1123, 111 So ... 242; Standley v. Arnow, 13 Fla. 361; Creadick v ... Keller, 5 W.W.Harr. 169, 35 Del. 169, 160 A. 909; ... Dwyer v. Shalek, 232 A.D. 780, 248 N.Y.S. [132 Fla ... 391] 355; Spearman v. Stover, ... ...