Jester v. Baltimore Steam Packet Co.

• Decision Date: 23 September 1902
• Citation: 42 S.E. 447,131 N.C. 54
• Parties: JESTER v. BALTIMORE STEAM PACKET CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

42 S.E. 447

131 N.C. 54

JESTER v. BALTIMORE STEAM PACKET CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 23, 1902

Appeal from superior court, Hertford county; Brown, Judge.

Action by Ella L. Jester against the Baltimore Steam Packet Company. From an order refusing a motion to dismiss the action defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Cook J., dissenting.

George Cowper, for appellant.

Winborne & Lawrence, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

Under a special appearance the defendant made a motion to dismiss the action for want of valid service of the summons. His honor found from the evidence that the plaintiff's cause of action arose in another state, that the defendant had no agent in the state of North Carolina, that it was doing no business in the state, and that service of the summons was made on the president of the defendant company in Raleigh by the reading of the summons and delivery of a copy thereof to him. Was the service of the process valid? The courts of this state are open to all suitors, resident and nonresident whether individuals or corporations. "Civil actions shall be commenced by issuing a summons," and there are no limitations or restrictions as to the residence of a would-be plaintiff. The manner prescribed by the Code for the service of the summons upon corporations (section 217 subsec. 1) is by the delivery of a copy to the president or other head of the corporation, secretary, cashier, treasurer director, managing or local agent thereof; but such service can be made in respect to a foreign corporation only when it has property within this state, or the cause of action arose therein, or when the plaintiff resides within the state, or when such service can be made within the state personally upon the president, treasurer, or secretary thereof." (Italics are ours.) The president of the defendant company was found in this state, and the summons was personally served upon him. Our law was complied with. Why is not the service good? The purpose and aim of the service of the summons are to give notice to the party against whom the proceeding or action is commenced, and any notification which reasonably accomplishes that purpose answers the claims of law and justice. The legislative power of the state in which the action is commenced is charged with the duty and responsibility of prescribing the rules governing in such matters, and its action is not reviewable unless it should plainly appear that the notice did not amount to "due process of law." Such a manner of service of summons as our legislative body has provided may not be the best that might have been desired, but it is clear as to its meaning, not unreasonable, and there is nothing for the courts to do but uphold it. It is a most...