Poling v. Moitra

I dissent, substantially for the reasons advanced by Judge Maus in Williams v. Malone, 592 S.W.2d 879 (Mo.App.1980), which, as the principal opinion states, involved an issue “substantially identical to the one in this case.”

The obvious purpose of § 516.200, RSMo 1978, was to provide relief for a plaintiff who sought to sue a defendant who was not available for service of process so that a personal judgment could be rendered. In two early cases, Garth v. Robarás, 20 Mo. 523 (1855) and Miller v. Tyler, 61 Mo. 401 (1875), the Court declined to apply the strict letter of a predecessor of…