Hirsch v. Warren
Citation | 68 S.W.2d 767,253 Ky. 62 |
Parties | HIRSCH v. WARREN (two cases). SAME v. JONES. |
Decision Date | 20 February 1934 |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Grant County.
Suits by A. F. Warren, Mrs. Callie Warren, and N.M. Jones against Mrs. Ruah Hirsch. From judgments for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed as to N.M. Jones, and reversed and remanded as to A. F Warren and Mrs. Callie Warren.
F. A Harrison, of Williamstown, for appellant.
R. L Vincent and L. M. Ackman, both of Williamstown, for appellees.
On January 31, 1932, an automobile belonging to Mrs. Ruah Hirsch, of Cincinnati, Ohio, collided with A. F. Warren's automobile on the Dixie Highway, in Grant county. Both machines were badly damaged, and Mrs. Callie Warren and N.M Jones, who were riding in the Warren car, were injured.
A. F. Warren brought suit to recover for the injury to his car, and process was served on Mrs. Hirsch in person. Later on separate actions were brought by Callie Warren and N.M. Jones to recover for personal injuries. Over the objection of Mrs. Hirsch, the three cases were consolidated and tried together. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Callie Warren for $500, in favor of A. F. Warren for $275, and in favor of N.M. Jones for $225. Mrs. Hirsch appeals as to Callie Warren, and has prayed an appeal as to A. F. Warren and N.M. Jones.
It is first insisted that the court erred in refusing to quash the process in the Callie Warren and N.M. Jones suits. The basis of this contention is that the statute providing for substituted process on a nonresident motorist contravenes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and is therefore invalid.
The statute, which is chapter 80, Acts 1930, and now section 12-1 to section 12-6, Carroll's Kentucky Statutes, 1933 Supplement, in so far as material, reads as follows:
All the suits were brought in the Grant circuit court. The amended petitions in the Callie Warren and Jones cases repeated the allegations of negligence, and gave the street address of Mrs. Hirsch in Cincinnati, Ohio. Summons in each case was issued by the clerk of the Grant circuit court directed to the sheriff of Franklin county, together with an attested copy of the amended petition. The summons and attested copy were delivered to the secretary of state by the sheriff of Franklin county, who made a return showing the proper execution and delivery thereof. The secretary of state then sent the summons and copy of the amended petition in each case to Mrs. Hirsch by registered mail to the address given in the petitions, with a return receipt attached thereto, together with a letter notifying Mrs. Hirsch of the nature and pendency of the action. In each case the registry receipt was signed by Mrs. Hirsch and returned to the secretary of state. This receipt, together with a letter reporting her acts, was mailed to, and received by, the clerk of the Grant circuit court in each case.
The rule deducible from the authorities is that, by virtue of its power to regulate the use of its highways by nonresidents the state may declare that the use of the highway by the nonresident may by statute be treated as the equivalent of the appointment by him of a state official as the agent on whom process may be served in suits growing out of accidents in such operation, Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091, provided the statute contain a provision making it reasonably probable that the notice will be communicated to the person sued, Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13, 48 S.Ct. 259, 72 L.Ed. 446, 57 A. L. R. 1230. The point of attack on the statute is that the secretary of state is not required actually to notify the defendant of the nature and pendency of the action, but is only required to write a letter to the defendant "at the address given in said petition," and, in reporting his action to the court, must include "the return registry receipt, if any," and that these requirements are not sufficient to make it reasonably...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hoagland v. Dolan
... ... The ... challenged validity of this statute was before us, and held ... to be constitutional, in the late case of Hirsch v ... Warren, 253 Ky. 62, 68 S.W.2d 767, 768, upon the ... principle therein announced that: "The rule deducible ... from the authorities is ... ...
-
Hoagland v. Dolan
...state. The challenged validity of this statute was before us, and held to be constitutional, in the late case of Hirsch v. Warren, 253 Ky. 62, 68 S.W. (2d) 767, 768, upon the principle therein announced "The rule deducible from the authorities is that, by virtue of its power to regulate the......
-
Toppass v. Perkins' Adm'x
... ... of a husband or wife because neither was a competent witness ... for the other. Sheetinger v. Dawson, 236 Ky. 571, 33 ... S.W.2d 609; Hirsch v. Warren, 253 Ky. 62, 68 S.W.2d ... 767. In these cases there was no such incompetency, for each ... plaintiff was competent to testify not only ... ...
-
Carby v. Greco
...in which such motor vehicle is involved." This act was held constitutional by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Hirsch v. Warren, 253 Ky. 62, 68 S.W.2d 767. The defendants contend that they are not properly before the court in that they are not residents of Kentucky, have not been served wit......