Reed v. Browning
| Decision Date | 18 March 1892 |
| Docket Number | 15,357 |
| Citation | 30 N.E. 704,130 Ind. 575 |
| Parties | Reed v. Browning |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Monroe Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed.
M. F Dunn and G. G. Dunn, for appellant.
J Jiles, C. C. Matson, R. A. Fulk, R. W. Miers and E. Corr, for appellee.
The complaint in this case alleges that the appellant was the owner and was engaged in operating a stone-quarry and stone saw-mill in Lawrence county, in which he employed a great number of men, the appellee among the number; that one Roberts was superintendent of the mill, and had charge of the workmen there employed; that the appellee was ordered by Roberts to leave the particular work in which he was engaged and to go and perform a certain other service, and that while he was obeying the order thus given, a certain large stone slab fell upon him, crushing and greatly and permanently injuring him.
He brought this action to recover damages for the injury thus sustained, and recovered a judgment.
Of several errors assigned and discussed we find it necessary to consider only two.
These relate to the action of the court in sustaining a demurrer to a plea in abatement filed by the appellant, and in overruling a motion in arrest of judgment. The plea in abatement alleged that the appellant was, when the suit was brought and summons served, and long had been, a resident of the State of Illinois, and not a resident of the State of Indiana. Summons was served upon him in Lawrence county, and, while the fact is not shown by the plea, his counsel in his brief informs us that he was at the time there giving personal attention to his interests in the stone-quarry. As against non-residents of the State, actions may be commenced against them and process served on them in any county in the State where they may be found. Section 312, R. S. 1881.
While the statute is general in its terms, and is sufficiently broad to authorize service of process on non-residents in all cases when they come into the State, an exception exists when their presence is for the purpose of attending the courts of the State either as suitors or as witnesses. Public policy demands that non-residents of the State, whose duty or interest requires their attendance in our courts, should be exempt from the service of civil process during such attendance. Wilson v. Donaldson, 117 Ind. 356, 20 N.E. 250. There can be no good reason, however, why a non-resident of the State, whose presence in the State is purely voluntary, and for the purpose of personal supervision of a business which he is conducting within the State, should be thus exempt from service of process. The plea was bad.
The complaint is in two paragraphs. No demurrer was filed, and its sufficiency was questioned for the first time by the motion in arrest of judgment.
The appellee is entitled to recover, if at all, only because of the actionable negligence of the appellant, or because of the negligence of others for which the appellant is answerable. The averments in both paragraphs of the complaint relating to the alleged negligence which caused the injury are substantially the same. We quote from the first paragraph:
"That said stone had...
To continue reading
Request your trial