Levitt v. Colonial Boat Works, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. L--17536,L--17536 |
| Citation | 70 N.J.Super. 555,176 A.2d 48 |
| Parties | Edmonde LEVITT, Plaintiff, v. COLONIAL BOAT WORKS, INC., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, United Marine, Inc., a corporation of the State of Delaware, Richardson Boat Co., Inc., a corporation of the State of Delaware, Gordon Boat Corporation, t/a Gordon Boat Company, Samuel Gordon and Frank Gordon, t/a Gordon Boat Company, jointly, severally and in the alternative, Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Arkus & Cooper, Atlantic City, for plaintiff.
Lloyd, Horn, Megargee & Steedle, Atlantic City, for defendant.
SALSBURG, J.C.C. (temporarily assigned).
The question in this case is whether the defendant, Frank Gordon, of the partnership of Samuel Gordon and Frank Gordon, trading as Gordon Boat Company, was duly and properly served so that the court has jurisdiction of the person of Frank Gordon.
The rule applicable is R.R. 4:4--4(e). The rule provides for service upon a partnership by personal service and if service cannot be made in that fashion 'then, subject to due process of law, by mailing, registered mail return receipt requested, a copy of the summons and complaint to a registered agent for service, or to its principal place of business, or to its registered office.'
It may be broadly stated that the Legislature or the courts, in prescribing the methods of the service of the original process in civil actions, have recognized the feasibility of two modes. The one is commonly described as actual or personal service accomplished by delivering, that is, handing over to the defendant a copy of the writ, and the other is known as substituted or constructive service, notably achieved by registered mail.
] The service of process by which courts of justice acquired jurisdiction has always been a subject of supreme importance. The provisions and requirements governing the manner of serving process are ordained with circumspection and a strict compliance with those prescriptions has been and is uniformly regarded as mandatory.
When one reads this rule, he can readily see that the copy of the summons and complaint must be mailed, registered mail, return receipt, either to a registered agent for service, or to its principal place of business, or to its registered office. In the present case, a copy of the summons and complaint was sent registered mail, return receipt requested, to the defendant, Frank Gordon, at premises where the defendant was now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.A. Intile Realty Co., Inc. v. Raho
...satisfied the statutory requirements for personal service. Defendants' counsel has relied upon Levitt v. Colonial Boat Works, Inc., 70 N.J.Super. 555, 176 A.2d 48 (Law Div.1961) for guidance in interpreting the meaning of the term "personal service." Levitt involved the effectiveness of ser......
-
Rudikoff v. Byrne, L--19380
...215 A.2d 56 (Law Div.1965); Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co., 8 N.J. 433, 86 A.2d 201 (1952); Levitt v. Colonial Boat Works, Inc., 70 N.J.Super. 555, 176 A.2d 48 (Law Div.1961). Further, the service must be 'consistent with due process of law.' It is to these two questions that we ......
- Jersey City Sewerage Authority v. Housing Authority of Jersey City, L--9571
-
Carlin v. Schuler
...and a strict compliance with those prescriptions has been and is uniformly regarded as mandatory.' Levitt v. Colonial Boat Works, Inc., 70 N.J.Super. 555, 557, 176 A.2d 48, 49 (Law Div.1961). This court therefore is reluctantly constrained to grant the motion made by defendant to quash the ...