Gates v. Gates
Decision Date | 02 September 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 170,170 |
Citation | 144 A.2d 782,120 Vt. 505 |
Parties | Frances F. GATES v. Herbert C. GATES. |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Manfred W. Ehrich, Jr., Bennington, for plaintiff.
Waldo C. Holden, Bennington, for defendant.
Before CLEARY, C. J., and ADAMS, HULBURD, and SHANGRAW, JJ.
This is a petition brought under V.S. 47, § 3241, No. 110 of the Acts of 1955, seeking a judgment for the amount to be determined due under a decree of divorce dated July 26, 1956, ordering the payment of alimony, attorney fees, etc. Service of the original petition for divorce was made on Mr. Gate in Vermont and at the divorce hearing he was represented by attorney Waldo C. Holden of Bennington, Vermont, who is still his attorney of record. Since the divorce hearing Mr. Gates has been continuously out of the State of Vermont, residing in the Province of Ontario, Canada. No claim is made that he has ever accepted service of the decree of divorce or the order for the payment of alimony, attorney fees, etc. This is the second petition seeking the same relief. See Gates v. Gates, 120 Vt. 241, 138 A.2d 611.
The present petition alleges that a copy of the divorce decree and order was served on Waldo C. Holden in Bennington, Vermont, as attorney of record for the libellee, Mr. Gates, by a deputy sheriff on December 31, 1956; and on Mr. Gates personally in Dunville, Ontario, Canada, by Alice J. Murphy, a deputy sheriff, on April 16, 1957. No order for service thereof on Mr. Gates, then outside of the State of Vermont, was obtained as provided for by V.S. 47, § 2136. The affidavit of service signed by Alice J. Murphy, deputy sheriff, failed to state the reason why she knew the person to whom the copy of the decree was delivered to be the person mentioned therein as a party as provided for by the provisions of V.S. 47, § 2137, and as amended by No. 37 of the Acts of 1953. A citation was issued on January 23, 1958 by the then presiding superior judge of the Bennington County Court directing that the petitionee appear before said court on the 13th day of February, 1958 and show cause why the court should not enter judgment for the sum then claimed due under the decree. On the same date a further citation was signed by one of the assistant judges of that court directing Mr. Gates to appear before said court at the same time and place and then and there show cause why the prayers of the petition should not be granted and he, the said petitionee, be adjudged in contempt of court. The petition was served on attorney Waldo C. Holden. Mr. Gates has not accepted service of the petition, nor has it been personally served on him.
Mr. Gates, appearing specially by his attorney Mr. Holden, filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the following grounds: The motion was signed by Waldo C. Holden as attorney for Mr. Gates. The case comes here on the exceptions taken and allowed the petitionee to the court's action in denying the motion to dismiss.
V.S. 47, § 3241, No. 110 of the Acts of 1955 reads in part as follows:
* * *
This is a statutory proceeding and our first and chief question is jurisdictional. Was the petitionee 'legally served with notice of such decree or order?' The contents and effect of the motion to dismiss in this case are substantially the same as that filed in Gates v. Gates, supra, 120 Vt. 241, 138 A.2d 611, wherein it was held that petitionee's motion to dismiss was well taken. However the manner of purported service of the divorce decree and order in that case and this one is different. In the above case the purported service was made on Mr. Holden, attorney for the petitionee by the county clerk. No return of service was endorsed on the decree. In this case the purported service was made on the petitionee in Canada by a deputy sheriff without the benefit of process or an order for service outside the state. As stated in Gates v. Gates, 120 Vt. 241, at page 244, 138 A.2d 611, at page 614 "Legally served with notice' means personal service, that is, a delivery of a copy of the process to the party to be served, (Chapman v. Chapman, 118 Vt. 120, 128, 100 A.2d 584) by a person authorized by law to make service, Howard v. Walker, 39 Vt. 163, 166. 'The proper method of serving process must be adopted in order to render the service effective, and it must be served by a proper officer or person.' 72 C.J.S. Process § 25, p. 1024.'
The word 'legal' has a variety of meanings: conforming to law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law. It also means 'good and effectual in law'. Black's Law Dictionary. 'Legal notice' means something more than bare knowledge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Miller v. Roseberry
-
Kau v. Bennett
...Kan. 378, 11 P.2d 276, 277; General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Schwartz, 118 N.J.L. 25, 190 A. 625, 627. See also, Gates v. Gates, 120 Vt. 505, 144 A.2d 782 (1958); Lewis v. Holden, 118 Vt. 59, 99 A.2d 758 (1953); 52 A C.J.S. Legal at 754 " Legally entitled to support" means "entitled......
-
Barthlein v. Ellis
...Ark. 1031, 476 S.W.2d 230 (1972); Salmanovitz v. Dexter-Davison Markets, Inc., 17 Mich.App. 390, 169 N.W.2d 516 (1969); Gates v. Gates, 120 Vt. 505, 144 A.2d 782 (1958). Proper service not having been made, the District Court never acquired jurisdiction so as to render judgment in this The ......
-
Gates v. Gates
...countered by motions to dismiss finally determined by this Court in Gates v. Gates, 120 Vt. 241, 138 A.2d 611, and Gates v. Gates, 120 Vt. 505, 144 A.2d 782. The motion to dismiss under consideration was overruled below and the exceptions to that ruling certified to this Court under the pro......