Reynolds v. Richardson, 34560
| Decision Date | 23 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 34560,34560 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles A. REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. Charles RICHARDSON and Jane Doe Richardson, his wife, Respondents. |
Livesey, Kingsbury & Livesey, Bellingham, for appellant.
Skeel, McKelvy, Henke, Evenson & Uhlmann, Seattle, for respondents.
This cause of action arose out of an automobile accident in Snohomish county, Washington, on July 3, 1955.
The trial court granted the defendants' motion to quash the service of summons and complaint, and the plaintiff appeals.
Our question concerns the compliance with RCW 46.64.040 [cf. Rem.Rev.Stat., Vol. 7A, § 6360-129], which provides for substituted service on nonresident motorists using the highways of this state. The pertinent part of the statute reads:
* * *' (Italics ours.)
At the time of the accident, the respondents were living in Everett, Washington. Subsequently, they left the state and moved to the state of Virginia.
The record shows that service was made on the secretary of state, and that personal service was made on respondent Charles A. Reynolds in the state of Virginia. It does not show, however, that notice of service on the secretary of state was sent by appellant to the respondents by registered mail or at all.
Personal service on the respondents relieved appellant of the duty to send a copy of the summons and complaint by registered mail, but it did not relieve him of the duty to send the respondents notice of service on the secretary of state. Smith v. Belmore, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 633.
On May 6, 1957, appellant received a copy of respondents' motion to quash. Hearings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Triol
...of service on the Secretary of State actually be delivered to defendant and proved by a signed return receipt); Reynolds v. Richardson, 53 Wash.2d 82, 83, 330 P.2d 1014 (1958) (requiring plaintiffs to give notice to defendants of service on the Secretary of State).Petitioners and Respondent......
-
Summers v. Sasaki
...the statute.' Meier, 111 Wn.2d at 479 (citing Muncie v. Westcraft Corp., 58 Wn.2d 36, 38, 360 P.2d 744 (1961); Reynolds v. Richardson, 53 Wn.2d 82, 330 P.2d 1014 (1958)); see also Triol, 121 Wn.2d at 144 ('It is appropriate to require strict compliance with the detailed procedures for servi......
-
Martin v. Meier
...adhered to, otherwise jurisdiction is not obtained under the statute. E.g., Muncie v. Westcraft Corp., supra; Reynolds v. Richardson, 53 Wash.2d 82, 330 P.2d 1014 (1958). In deciding the next question here, whether the statute applies, we heed the rule that in construing statutes our object......
-
Bethel v. Sturmer, 260--II
...with, we would ordinarily declare that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Reynolds v. Richardson, 53 Wash.2d 82, 330 P.2d 1014 (1958). If the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, she would ordinarily be entitled to immed......