Legal Opinion · Dissent

DeCorvet v. Dolan

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1893No. 970Published

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County.

1DissentStiles, J.

I do not think that it was within the power of the" territorial legislature to enact the bald rule which the court in this case has enforced. A resident of the territory under the act of 1877 was entitled to personal service of summons issued in a case brought against him, or, at least, to have the summons left with some suitable person at his dwelling house or usual place of abode; and a non-resident was entitled to precisely the same treatment, if he could be found within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

It is inseparable from any showing of non-residence by which a plaintiff…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Forbes v. HydeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Ricketson v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Carleton v. . CarletonNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  4. Alderson v. MarshallMontana Supreme Court · 1888
  5. McCracken v. . FlanaganNew York Court of Appeals · 1891

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API