Magelssen v. Hale, 5297.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 5297.,5297. |
| Citation | 81 F. Supp. 138 |
| Parties | MAGELSSEN v. HALE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Will H. Hargus, of Harrisonville, Mo., for plaintiff.
Langworthy, Matz & Linde, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
This action was originally brought in the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri. In the complaint it is asserted by the plaintiff that the defendant was a nonresident of the State of Missouri, and that on the 24th of February, 1948, he was driving and operating an automobile in said Cass County, Missouri, and by his negligence in so operating his automobile he inflicted injuries upon the plaintiff.
After an attempted service of process the case was removed to this court and a motion to quash the service was sustained. Thereupon the plaintiff caused a summons to be issued conformable to the provisions of Section 8410.5, 18 Mo.R.S.A. Service was had through the Secretary of State and the defendant was notified in the manner prescribed by law. It is his contention here that this court has no right to cause a summons to be issued so as to obtain valid service of process upon the defendant and particularly since, by Section 8410.11, 18 Mo.R.S.A., the venue of such suits shall be "in the County in which the cause of action accrues."
1. Adverting to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., for the service of process, Rule 4(d) (1) provides that service may be had upon an individual "by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process."
It is provided by Section 8410.1, 18 Mo. R.S.A. that, as a condition to operating an automobile in Missouri by a non-resident, such a non-resident shall agree that he will be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state in all civil actions and proceedings against him by either a resident or non-resident; and he further shall agree that the Secretary of State of Missouri shall be his lawful attorney and agent "upon whom may be served all process in suits pertaining to such actions and proceedings; * * *." And he further shall agree, "that any process in any suit so served shall be of the same legal force and validity as if personally served on him in this State, Laws 1941, p. 435, § 1."
It appears, therefore, from the provisions of Rule 4(d) (1) that the summons and complaint served upon the Secretary of State were sufficient as that officer was an agent authorized by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giffin v. Ensign
...193; Kirksey v. v. Beauchesne, D.C.D.Mass.1951, 98 F. Supp. 148; Morris v. Sun Oil Co., D.C.D. Md.1950, 88 F.Supp. 529; Magelssen v. Hale, D.C.W.D.Mo.1948, 81 F.Supp. 138. No reported case has been cited to us, and we can find none which supports the defendants' point of view. Cf. Szabo v. ......
-
O'TOOLE v. United States
...to defendants of the classes defined in Rule 4(d) (1) and 4(d) (3). See Sussan v. Strasser, E.D.Pa.1941, 36 F.Supp. 266; Magelssen v. Hale, W.D.Mo.1948, 81 F.Supp. 138. The validity of this procedure as to non-resident defendants who are individuals or private corporations is recognized by ......
-
GAC Properties, Inc. of Ariz. v. Farley
...must be filed in the county in which the property involved is located does not require that the case be tried there. Magelssen v. Hale, 81 F.Supp. 138 (W.D.Mo.1948). The legislature, in requiring no affidavits in support of a motion for a change of venue when a county is a party to an actio......
-
Weisler v. Matta
...result I cannot subscribe. See Ball v. Yankee Lines, supra, and Blunda v. Craig, D.C.E.D.Mo.1947, 74 F.Supp. 9; and see Magelssen v. Hale, D.C.W.D.Mo.1948, 81 F.Supp. 138, Morris v. Sun Oil Co., D.C.D.Md.1950, 88 F.Supp. 529, and Townsend v. Fletcher, D.C.N.D. Ohio 1949, 9 F.R.D. I am left,......