Krumenacker v. Andis

• Decision Date: 09 October 1917
• Docket Number: 1915
• Citation: 165 N.W. 524,38 N.D. 500
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

165 N.W. 524

38 N.D. 500

MAGDALENA KRUMENACKER v. ANTON ANDIS, Executor of the Last Will of Decedent; Magdalena Krumenacker; Katie Stecher; her Children, Peter, Ludvig, Katie, and Thomas Krumenacker Stecher

No. 1915

Supreme Court of North Dakota

October 9, 1917

Rehearing denied December 14, 1917.

Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Honorable W. C Crawford, Judge.

Reversed.

Reversed and Remanded.

W. F Blume and H. C. Berry, for appellants.

In an affidavit for service of summons by publication, in an action against one whose residence is unknown, the statement that his "whereabouts" are unknown to affiant is equivalent to a statement that his "residence" is unknown, and is a full compliance with the statute. Comp Laws 1913, § 7428; Jablonski v. Piesik, 30 N.D. 543, 153 N.W. 274; Dallas v. Luster, 27 N.D. 450, 147 N.W. 95; Horton v. Monroe, 98 Mich. 195, 57 N.W. 109; Leigh v. Green, 62 Neb. 344, 89 Am. St. Rep. 751, 86 N.W. 1093.

For the purpose of sustaining an affidavit for attachment, the complaint should be read and construed with the affidavit. Woods v. Pollard, 14 S.D. 44, 84 N.W. 214; Carr v. Carr, 92 Ky. 552, 36 Am. St. Rep. 614, 18 S.W. 453.

When it is stated that defendant resides in another state, it is sufficient to show that service cannot be made within the state, and is sufficient as basis for service by publication. Bank of Colfax v. Richardson, 34 Ore. 518, 75 Am. St. Rep. 664, 54 P. 359; Anderson v. Goff, 72 Cal. 65, 1 Am. St. Rep. 34, 13 P. 73.

When it is stated that defendant resides in another state, it is sufficient to show that service cannot be made within the state, and is sufficient as basis for service by publication. Hilbish v. Hattle, 145 Ind. 59, 33 L.R.A. 783, 44 N.E. 20; Morrow v. Weed, 4 Iowa 77, 66 Am. Dec. 122; Callen v. Ellison, 13 Ohio St. 446, 82 Am. Dec. 448; Brown v. Globle, 97 Ind. 86; Barnes v. Shoemaker, 112 Ind. 512, 14 N.E. 367.

Where the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the facts which it is required to ascertain and determine by its decision, its findings of facts showing its jurisdiction is conclusive in collateral attack. Dowell v. Lahr, 97 Ind. 146; Otis v. DeBoer, 116 Ind. 531, 19 N.E. 317; People ex rel. Porter v. Rochester, 21 Barb. 656.

Jurisdiction in such cases is presumed. Withers v. Patterson, 27 Tex. 491, 86 Am. Dec. 643; Holmes v. Campbell, 12 Minn. 221, Gil. 141; Butcher v. Bank of Brownsville, 2 Kan. 70, 83 Am. Dec. 446; Reynolds v. Stansbury, 20 Ohio 344, 55 Am. Dec. 459; Bush v. Lindsey, 24 Ga. 245, 71 Am. Dec. 117; Ely v. Tallman, 14 Wis. 29; Potter v. Merchants' Bank, 28 N.Y. 641, 86 Am. Dec. 273; Arnold v. Nye, 23 Mich. 286; Foot v. Stevens, 17 Wend. 483.

A nonresident alien cannot successfully claim exemptions unless so authorized by statute. The statutes of North Dakota do not give such right. 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 67; Johnson v. Olson, 92 Kan. 819, L.R.A.1915E, 327, 142 P. 256; Schouler, Exrs. & Admrs. § 448; 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 156; Tromsdahl v. Beaton, 27 N.D. 441, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 746, 146 N.W. 719; Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 5759, 8725 and 8727.

The exemption of personal property to the widow and children of decedent, like the exemption of the homestead, is intended for the benefit of residents, and contemplates the existence of the family relation in the estate. Ex parte Pearson, 76 Ala. 521; Allen v. Manasse, 4 Ala. 554; Coates's Estate, 12 Phila. 171; Spier's Appeal, 26 Pa. 233; Platt's Appeal, 80 Pa. 501; Monk's Estate, 8 Montg. Co. L. Rep. 113; Auerbach v. Pritchett, 58 Ala. 451; Talmadge v. Talmadge, 66 Ala. 199; Shannon v. White, 109 Mass. 146; Barber v. Ellis, 68 Miss. 172, 8 So. 390; Richardson v. Lewis, 21 Mo.App. 531; Re Bose, 158 Cal. 428, 111 P. 258; Austin's Estate, 73 Mo.App. 61; Hascall v. Hafford, 107 Tenn. 355, 89 Am. St. Rep. 952, 65 S.W. 423; Daniels v. Taylor, 76 C. C. A. 139, 145 F. 169, 7 Ann. Cas. 352; Alston v. Ulman, 39 Tex. 158; Smith v. Howard, 86 Me. 203, 4 Am. St. Rep. 537, 29 A. 1008; Medley v. Dunlap, 90 N.C. 527; Graham v. Stull, 92 Tenn. 673, 22 S.W. 738, and note in 21 L.R.A. 241.

The homestead right is denied to a nonresident. Tromsdahl v. Beaton, 27 N.D. 441, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 746, 146 N.W. 719; Blatchley v. Dakota Land & Cattle Co., 26 N.D. 539, 145 N.W. 95.

Property left by will is not subject to the claim to exemptions by a nonresident alien. Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 7730, 8725; Fore v. Fore, 2 N.D. 261, 50 N.W. 712; Kapp v. Public Administrator, 2 Bradf. 258.

The right to exemptions is not personal to anyone; it is a family right. There is no family relationship shown in this case. First International Bank v. Lee, 25 N.D. 197, 141 N.W. 716; Revalk v. Kraemer, 8 Cal. 66, 68 Am. Dec. 304; Farlin v. Sook, 26 Kan. 397; Stanton v. Hitchcock, 64 Mich. 316, 8 Am. St. Rep. 821, 31 N.W. 395; Black v. Singley, 91 Mich. 50, 51 N.W. 704; Emmett v. Emmett, 14 Lea, 369; Prater v. Prater, 87 Tenn. 78, 10 Am. St. Rep. 623, 9 S.W. 361; many citations in note to Sheehy v. Scott, 4 L.R.A. (N. S.) 365; Spier's Appeal, 26 Pa. 233; Ex parte Pearson, 76 Ala. 521.

Murtha & Sturgeon, and C. B. Schmidt, for respondent.

This is not an equity case, and therefore a trial de novo in this court cannot be had. The mere fact that a case is tried to the court without a jury does not make it strictly a court case. Novak v. Lovin, 33 N.D. 424, 157 N.W. 297; More v. Burger, 15 N.D. 345, 107 N.W. 200; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Hellekson, 13 N.D. 257, 100 N.W. 717; Gagnier v. Fargo, 12 N.D. 219, 96 N.W. 841; Flora v. Mathwig, 19 N.D. 4, 121 N.W. 63; Updegraff v. Tucker, 24 N.D. 171, 139 N.W. 366.

If the findings, in such a case, have substantial support in the evidence, they are not disturbed. State v. Banks, 24 N.D. 21, 138 N.W. 973; James River Nat. Bank v. Weber, 19 N.D. 702, 124 N.W. 952; State Bank v. Maier, 34 N.D. 259, 158 N.W. 346; Taute v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 25 N.D. 102, 141 N.W. 134, 4 N. C. C. A. 365.

Where the affidavit for publication of the summons makes use of the word "whereabouts" in their attempt to show that defendant's "residence" is not known, it is fatally defective. Atwood v. Tucker (Atwood v. Roan) 26 N.D. 622, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 597, 145 N.W. 587; Jablonski v. Piesik, 30 N.D. 543, 153 N.W. 274.

Such expressions or terms are not synonymous, and the use of the word "whereabouts" is not a compliance with the statute. Further than this, no affidavit was on file before the first publication of the summons. Jurisdiction in such cases can only be acquired by a strict compliance with the statute. Jablonski v. Piesik, supra; Roberts v. Enderlin Invest. Co., 21 N.D. 594, 132 N.W. 145; Black, Judg. 2d ed. § 232, p. 348; Boswell v. Otis, 9 How. 336, 350, 13 L.Ed. 164, 170; Braly v. Seaman, 30 Cal. 611; Comp. Laws 1913, § 7428.

In this state the affidavit for publication and the proof of such service are a part of the judgment roll. It is the established rule that, where the judgment roll discloses the fact that no service was had, then the judgment is absolutely void and may be impeached collaterally. Black, Judgm. 2d ed. §§ 246, 263, pp. 366, 396; O'Malley v. Fricke, 104 Wis. 280, 80 N.W. 436; Carter v. Frahm, 31 S.D. 379. 141 N.W. 370; Boyle v. Ora Plata Min. & Mill. Co., 14 Ariz. 484, 131 P. 155; Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Coleman, 23 Colo.App. 351, 129 P. 522; Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Gibson, 23 Colo.App. 344, 129 P. 520; Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Coldren, 51 Colo. 115, 117 P. 1005; Aldrich v. Steen, 71 Neb. 33, 98 N.W. 445, 100 N.W. 311; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Hitchcock County, 60 Neb. 722, 84 N.W. 97; Kahn v. Matthai, 115 Cal. 689, 47 P. 698; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 77 P. 1007; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350, 21 L.Ed. 959; Vandervort v. Finnell, 96 Neb. 515, 148 N.W. 332; Oziah v. Howard, 149 Iowa 199, 128 N.W. 364; Lougee v. Beeney, 22 Colo.App. 603, 126 P. 1102; Munson v. Pawnee Cattle Co., 53 Colo. 337, 126 P. 275; Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Irwin, 23 Colo.App. 206, 128 P. 867; Hembree v. McFarland, 55 Wash. 605, 104 P. 837; Fogg v. Ellis, 61 Neb. 829, 86 N.W. 494; Hanover v. Turner, 14 Mass. 227, 7 Am. Dec. 203; Brown v. St. Paul & N. P. R. Co., 38 Minn. 506, 38 N.W. 698; Grover & B. Sewing Mach. Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U.S. 287, 34 L.Ed. 670, 11 S.Ct. 92.

The statute limiting exemptions to $ 500 does not apply in probate proceedings, and that the surviving husband, wife, or minor child is entitled to $ 1,500 in exemptions. Woods v. Teeson, 31 N.D. 610, 154 N.W. 797; Comp. Laws 1913, § 8725.

Under such statutes a nonresident widow is entitled to the exemption. Sammons v. Higbie, 103 Minn. 448, 115 N.W. 265; Stromberg v. Stromberg, 119 Minn. 325, 138 N.W. 428; Grieve's Estate, 165 Pa. 126, 30 A. 727; Comerford v. Coulter, 82 Mo.App. 362; Re Hager, 150 Ill.App. 347; Re McMillan, 28 Ohio C. C. 645; Farris v. Battle, 80 Ga. 187, 7 S.E. 262; Maddox v. Patterson, 80 Ga. 719, 6 S.E. 581; Campbell v. Whitsett, 66 Mo.App. 444; Kapp v. Public Administrator, 2 Bradf. 258; Duplain's Succession, 113 La. 786, 37 So. 755; Banse v. Muhme, 13 Ohio C. C. 501, 7 Ohio C. D. 224; Balmforth's Estate, 26 Pa. S.Ct. 491; Griesemer v. Boyer, 13 Wash. 171, 43 P. 17; Christie's Succession, 20 La.Ann. 383, 96 Am. Dec. 411; Johnson v. Johnson, 41 Vt. 467; Nye's Appeal, 126 Pa. 341, 12 Am. St. Rep. 873, 17 A. 618; Mowser v. Mowser, 87 Mo. 437; Comerford v. Coulter, 82 Mo.App. 362; Hastings v. Myers, 21 Mo. 519; King v. King, 64 Mo.App. 301; Allen v. Allen, 117 Mass. 27; Lisk v. Lisk, 155 Mass. 153, 29 N.E. 375; Welch v. Welch, 181 Mass. 37, 62 N.E. 982.

The clear intent of the law is to vest an absolute property right in the widow, and her abandonment of her husband does not affect such right, and such right is not restricted to resident widows. Kellogg v. Graves, 5 Ind. 509; Singleton v. McQuerry, 8...