Morris v. Harris, 1--872A44
| Decision Date | 12 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--872A44,1--872A44 |
| Parties | Donna M. MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. HARRIS, Administrator of the Estate of Earnest R. Babb, Deceased, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James H. Kelly, Greenfield, for plaintiff-appellant.
George V. Heins, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellee; Smith, Maley & Douglas, Indianapolis, of counsel.
The plaintiff-appellant (Morris) is appealing the dismissal of her negligence suit against the defendant-appellee (Babb and Babb's Administrator Harris). The dismissal was predicated upon a failure to commence the cause of action within the prescribed statute of limitations.
Morris was involved in an auto accident with Babb, an Illinois resident, on the 7th of December, 1967. On the 14th of October, 1969, she filed suit and directed that summons be served on the Secretary of State of Indiana, pursuant to the then applicable Ind.Ann.Stat. § 47--1043 (Burns 1965) IC 1971, 9--3--2--1. The registered letter sent by the Secretary of State was returned with the notation of 'deceased' inscribed over the address. Subsequent events would show that Babb had, in fact, died on the 18th of March, 1968. Morris filed an affidavit to show the letter was returned unclaimed as required by the foregoing statute.
Morris petitioned the court to appoint a personal representative of Babb on the 5th of June, 1970. The court granted Morris' petition and appointed Harris as Babb's personal representative. This occurred after the two year statute of limitations as prescribed by Ind.Ann.Stat. § 2--602 (Burns 1967), IC 1971, 34--1--2--2.
In mid July, 1970, Harris filed a motion to dismiss because Babb had died prior to the filing of the complaint, therefore there was a lack of jurisdiction and an insufficiency of service of process. After some maneuvering of no consequence to this opinion, the motion to dismiss was granted.
The essence of the specifications in the overruled motion to correct errors are two-fold. Did the service of process on the Secretary of State toll the statute of limitations and did the representations of Babb's insurance company adjuster and attorney estop contesting service of process under the facts of this case?
The Nonresident Operators statute addresses itself to the facts of the instant case.
'Where such nonresident has died prior to the commencement of an action brought pursuant to this section, service of process shall be made on the executor or administrator of such nonresident in the same manner and on the same notice as is provided in the case of the nonresident himself.' Ind.Ann.Stat. § 47--1043 (Burns 1965).
The most elementary issue to be resolved is the determination of the sufficiency of the service of process by Morris at the initiation of the suit. We are of the opinion process was not sufficient to stop the running of the statute of limitations.
'One of the questions which may arise involves the sufficiency of service upon the personal representative of a deceased non-resident.
The general rule is that agency is revoked by death of the principal and this rule is applicable here. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Levinson
...See: Collins v. Dunifon, supra, at 267 of 323 N.E.2d and cases therein cited. Here, as in the similar case of Morris v. Harris, Admr. (1973), 155 Ind.App. 467, 293 N.E.2d 202, the return of summons marked "deceased" prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations put Martin on notice ......
-
Guinn v. Light
...in a court of general jurisdiction, her claim is time-barred because it was not so filed, they argue, citing Morris v. Harris (1973), 155 Ind.App. 467, 293 N.E.2d 202, in support of that In Morris, a proposed out-of-state defendant motorist died while the claimant, an insurance adjuster, an......
-
Morris v. Harris
...Indianapolis, of counsel. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge. In seeking a rehearing on the decision in this case, 293 N.E.2d 202, Morris, inter alia, argues that the 'void' referred to in the main opinion defeats the intent of the law to do an injustice. We are of the opi......