Pinney v. Providence Loan & Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1900
• Citation: Pinney v. Providence Loan & Inv. Co., 106 Wis. 396, 82 N.W. 308 (Wis. 1900)
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: PINNEY v. PROVIDENCE LOAN & INVESTMENT CO. ET AL.

106 Wis. 396

82 N.W. 308

PINNEY

v.PROVIDENCE LOAN & INVESTMENT CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 6, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Douglas county; A. J. Vinje, Judge.

Action by N. C. Pinney against the Providence Loan & Investment Company and another.From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the Providence Loan & Investment Company appeals.Reversed.Catlin, Butler & Lyons, for appellant.

Thorson & De La Motte, for respondent.

CASSODAY, C. J.

The plaintiff, as the grantee in a tax deed issued to her August 16, 1898, by Douglas county, upon the tax sale of 1895 for the taxes of 1894, claims to have commenced this action October 4, 1898, under section 1197, Rev. St., against the defendantProvidence Loan & Investment Company, as the former owner of the land described, and one Sarazin, claiming to be a part owner thereof, to bar them and each of them from all right, title, interest, and claim in and to the lands described.It appears that service of summons was made or claimed to have been made on the defendant Sarazin as a resident of Houghton, Mich., by publication.There was no appearance in the action, and judgment on default was entered February 25, 1899, according to the prayer of the plaintiff'scomplaint.The only proof of service of the summons or the summons and complaint on the defendant corporation found in the judgment roll, and upon which such judgment was so entered, is an affidavit of one Fred A. Russell, who became the register of deeds in January, 1899, to the effect that October 4, 1898, there was filed in his office as such register the summons and complaint in this action by delivering to and leaving with such register true copies thereof; that at that time the defendant corporation had filed no list containing the names of its president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or managing agent on whom service of process, notice, or orders might have been made, as provided in subdivision 10, § 2637, Rev. St., that such Providence Loan & Investment Company was then a private corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, and that its principal offices were in the city of Superior, Douglas county.September 22, 1899, the defendant corporation appeared in the action by attorneys specially, and appealed to this court from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against such corporation, barring it from all right, title, and interest in the land described in such complaint and judgment.February 14, 1900, the plaintiff obtained an order upon the appellant to show cause why the plaintiff should not be allowed to amend her proof of service by filing with and making a part of the record certain affidavits thereunto attached.Upon the hearing of that motion it appeared from such affidavits that October 4, 1898, the plaintiff's attorney and the then register of deeds, P. A. Sandberg, searched the register's office, and found no list of officers of the defendant corporation; that the plaintiff's attorney then gave the summons and complaint to such register, who handed the same to his deputy, W. H. Smith, who filed the same, and made the entry, under date of October 4, 1898: “Numerical Index Book, No. 110,482.Service on Providence Loan & Trust Co., filed;” that it further appeared upon such motion from an affidavit of Fred A. Russell, explaining his former affidavit, mentioned, to the effect that the only knowledge he had at the time of making that affidavit was such entry in the index book, above quoted; that he never saw the papers until February 21, 1900, and then found them among the files of notices of lis pendens.It also appears from the affidavit of one of the attorneys for the defendant corporation, in effect, that the summons and complaint were delivered to one A. C. Titus, October 4, 1898, but that, as A. C. Titus was not an officer or agent of the defendant corporation, he paid no further attention to such service; that a few days thereafter he inquired of the register of deeds, Sandberg, who, after search in his office, said there were no papers in any such action on file therein; that September 1, 1899, he first learned that such judgment had been entered on default February 25, 1899.

The facts in regard to the summons and complaint having been delivered to and left with the register of deeds by the plaintiff's attorney October 4, 1898, are undisputed, and show a compliance with section 1775b, Rev. St., as it then stood.As indicated, the defendant company was then a private corporation organized and existing under the laws of this state, and had its principal office in the city of Superior.By the statute cited it was required, on or before October 1, 1898, to file in the office of the register of deeds of that county a list of the names of its officers therein mentioned “on whom service of process, notices, or orders” might be made as provided by subdivision 10, § 2637, Rev. St.The right of the legislature to require such corporation to so file such list is not and cannot be successfully questioned.It has been said upon high authority that: “A state, on creating corporations or other institutions for pecuniary or charitable purposes, may provide a mode in which their conduct may be investigated, their obligations enforced, or their charters revoked, which shall require other than personal service upon their officers or members.Parties becoming members of such corporations or institutions would hold their interest subject to the conditions prescribed by law.”Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 735, 736, 24 L. Ed. 565.Section 1775b was also made applicable to such corporations formed after October 1, 1898.That section also provided that “in all cases until such list of officers is so filed as aforesaid service of all legal process, notices, orders or other legal proceedings may be lawfully and effectually made upon any such corporation by delivering to and leaving with the register of deeds where such corporation has its principal office true copies of such legal process, orders, notices or proceedings, in which case service so made shall be valid.”The subsequent amendment of that section does not affect the question here presented.Chapter 46,Laws 1899.It does not appear that any attempt was made to serve the summons or summons and complaint on any of the officers of the defendant corporation, as required by subdivision 10, § 2637, Rev. St.; nor by the publication of the summons, as required by section 2639, Rev. St.As indicated, the only service or attempted service of the summons or summons and complaint in this action upon the...