Muncie v. Westcraft Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35527,35527 |
| Citation | 58 Wn.2d 36,360 P.2d 744 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Elton R. MUNCIE and Marie Muncie, husband and wife, Appellants, v. WESTCRAFT CORPORATION, a corporation, and Hayden E. Hill, Respondents. |
Cheney & Hutcheson, Yakima, for appellants.
Gavin, Robinson & Kendrick, Robert R. Redman, Yakima, for respondents.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident between a car, in which the plaintiff, a Washington resident, was riding as a passenger, and a pickup truck owned by the defendant Westcraft Corporation of California (hereinafter called Westcraft) and driven by the defendant Hill, who was an employee of Westcraft and a California resident.
This action was commenced two years and five months after the accident. In attempting to comply with the Washington Motor Vehicle Act, the plaintiffs, on April 7, 1959, served summons on the secretary of state, and, on April 6, 1959, sent notice of such service by registered mail to defendants Hill and Westcraft at their last known address in California. On April 10, 1959, both notices were returned unopened. The one to defendant Hill indicated that he had moved leaving no forwarding address, and the one to Westcraft indicated that the forwarding order had expired (such change of address orders expire two years after being filed). On April 13, 1959, notice was sent to, and subsequently received by, William N. Bowie, the former trustee in bankruptcy of Westcraft. On May 11, 1959, a notice was sent to Earl Davis, the former president of Westcraft. This was also returned indicating that Davis had moved leaving no forwarding address.
Bowie's term as trustee in bankruptcy of Westcraft had expired nearly a year before he received the notice. However, remembering that Westcraft had carried public liability insurance on its trucks, he notified the insurance company. The insurance company then secured counsel who, on April 30, 1959, made a special appearance and moved to quash the summons for failure to comply with RCW 46.64.040. The trial court granted the motion and awarded statutory costs. The plaintiffs appeal.
At the time this action was commenced, RCW 46.64.040, the nonresident service of process statute, provided, inter alia:
'* * * Service of such summons or process shall be made by leaving two copies thereof with a fee of two dollars with the secretary of state, or at his office, and such service shall be sufficient and valid personal service upon the nonresident, but only if notice of such service and a copy of the summons or process is forthwith sent by registered mail, requiring personal delivery, by plaintiff to the defendant and the defendant's return receipt, and the plaintiff's affidavit of compliance herewith are appended to the process and entered as a part of the return thereof. * * *' (Italics ours.)
Of the two types of statutes covering service of process on nonresident motorists, one requires that notice of service on the secretary of state be sent to the 'last known address' of a defendant, and the other requires that a defendant be actually notified of such service. For a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheldon v. Fettig
...service of process statutes, strict construction was once the guiding principle of statutory construction. See Muncie v. Westcraft Corp., 58 Wash.2d 36, 38, 360 P.2d 744 (1961). However, more recently, we have applied liberal construction to substitute service of process statutes in order t......
-
Martin v. Triol
...922, 557 P.2d 1299 (1976); Sawyer v. Ostrom, 39 Wash.App. 813, 696 P.2d 595 (1985). Both are distinguishable.33 Muncie v. Westcraft Corp., 58 Wash.2d 36, 39, 360 P.2d 744 (1961).34 Barr v. Interbay Citizens Bank, 96 Wash.2d 692, 696, 635 P.2d 441, 649 P.2d 827 (1982); In re Estate of Palucc......
-
Union Bay Preservation Coalition v. Cosmos Development & Admin. Corp.
...101 Wash.2d 475, 680 P.2d 55 (1984). But see Nitardy v. Snohomish County, 105 Wash.2d 133, 712 P.2d 296 (1986); Muncie v. Westcraft Corp., 58 Wash.2d 36, 360 P.2d 744 (1961); Meadowdale Neighborhood Comm. v. Edmonds, 27 Wash.App. 261, 616 P.2d 1257 (1980).5 It is ironic that RAP 5.4(b), whi......
-
Vanguard International, Inc. v. Guangdong Fully, Ltd.
...625 (1985)). [20] 127 Wn.App. 139, 111 P.3d 271 (2005). [21] Rodriguez, 127 Wn.App. at 145. [22] 75 Wn.2d 808, 454 P.2d 224 (1969). [23] 58 Wn.2d 36, 360 P.2d 744 (1961) (such strict construction is no longer used); see Sheldon v. Fettig, 129 Wn.2d 601, 919 P.2d 1209 (1996). [24] State v. B......