Eminent Household of Columbian v. Lundy

• Decision Date: 13 March 1916
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: EMINENT HOUSEHOLD OF COLUMBIAN v. LUNDY

71 So. 16

110 Miss. 881

EMINENT HOUSEHOLD OF COLUMBIAN v. LUNDY

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 13, 1916

March 1916

APPEAL from the circuit court of Neshoba county, HON. C. L. DOBBS Judge.

Suit by Slocum Lundy against the Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen. Default judgment for plaintiff and defendant brought certiorari to circuit court wherein judgment was rendered for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

On April 20, 1912, appellee brought suit in the court of a justice of the peace of Neshoba county against appellant for the sum of one hundred dollars. A summons was issued directed to appellee, and on April 24th the constable made the following return:

"I have this day executed the within writ by delivering to J. F Guthrie, consul commander, and to Melton Lundy, agents and representatives of defendant, whose place of business is in Neshoba county, Miss., district No. 1 thereof, a true copy of this writ."

On May 1st, the return day of the court, a judgment by default was rendered against appellant. No notice was given appellant by the justice of the peace, and no copy of the summons mailed to him as directed by section 920 of the Code of 1906.

After the time for an appeal to the circuit court had elapsed appellant learned of this judgment, and filed its petition in the circuit court asking for a writ of certiorari. The record was brought up, and on the hearing before the court, a jury being waived, a judgment was rendered against the appellant from which an appeal is taken.

Section 920 of the Code is as follows:

"920. Process may be Served upon Agent.--Process may be served upon an agent of said corporation found within the county where the suit is brought, no matter what character of agent such person may be; and in the absence of an agent, it shall be sufficient to serve the process upon any person, if found within the county where the suit is brought, who represented the corporation at the time of the transaction out of which the suit arises took place, or if the agency through which the transaction was had be itself a corporation, then upon any agent of that corporation upon whom process might have been served if it were the defendant. The officer serving the process shall state the facts, upon whom issued, etc., in his return, and service of process so made shall be as effectual as if a corporation of this state were sued, and the process has been served as required by law;...