[DOWNLOAD] "Rothrock v. Bauman Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Rothrock v. Bauman Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 18, 1925
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
Submitted April 25, 1925. Default Judgments — Setting Aside — Corporations — Summons — Substituted Service — Affidavit — Contents — Error of Clerk in Issuing Order — Ineffective to Deprive Court of Jurisdiction. Summons — Corporations — Substituted Service — Insufficient Affidavit — Service Void. 1. An insufficient affidavit for substituted service of summons renders the order for such service void. Same — Affidavit Need not Recite That Cause of Action Arose in State. 2. The affidavit for substituted service of summons required by section 9112, Revised Codes of 1921, need not recite that plaintiff's cause of action arose within this state. Same — Affidavit — What Sufficient to Show That Plaintiff has Good Cause of Action. 3. Absence of a statement in an affidavit for substituted service of summons that plaintiff has a good cause of action upon the merits does not render it insufficient; if it discloses the nature of the action, the relationship of each of the parties to the subject matter of the litigation, and the relief sought, it suffices. Same — Domestic Corporation — Affidavit — When Sufficient. 4. In an action against a domestic corporation, an affidavit for an order for substituted service of summons by the secretary of state or his assistant is sufficient if it discloses that the president or other head of the corporation, secretary, cashier or managing agent thereof cannot be found. Same — Error of Clerk in Issuing Order Held Insufficient to Render It Invalid. 5. Where substituted service of summons upon a corporation was properly made on the deputy secretary of state in the absence of the secretary himself, and that officer did what he was required to do in the premises, the fact that the clerk in issuing the order for the substituted service directed that it be made upon the secretary of state or upon his deputy, instead of upon the secretary or ""in his absence from his office"" upon the deputy in conformity with the requirement of section 9112, Revised Codes, did not render the order invalid so as to deprive the court of jurisdiction to render judgment by default.