Case ID: mass_79/html/0270-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hoar, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel H. Craig vs. Frederick N. Gisborne.
    Leaving a summons in the berth of a defendant, in a vessel in which he has taken passage and lies concealed, is no service of a writ.
    Action of tort. The officer made this return upon the writ: “ Suffolk, ss. April 25,1859. By virtue of this writ, I have made diligent search for the within named Frederick N. Gisborne, but could neither find him nor any last and usual place of abode of his in my precinct, except on board of the steamer bound for Liverpool via Halifax, where he had taken passage, and was then hid away in some part of said steamer. I therefore attached a chip as the property of said Gisborne, and left him a summons in his berth on board of said steamer, for his appearance to an swer as within directed.”
    In the court of common pleas, the plaintiff moved for a default. But Bishop, J. ruled that the service was insufficient, and that the court had no jurisdiction. To this ruling the plaintiff excepted.
    
      J. E. Field, for the plaintiff.
    No counsel appeared for the defendant.
   Hoar, J.

There was no service of the wilt in any manner authorized by law. The officer returns that he found no last and usual place of abode of the defendant; and the defendant’s berth in a steamer in which he had taken passage is clearly not such. There was no personal service, and the fact that he was hidden in the steamer is no reason for substituting for personal service the leaving of a copy where he might find it.

Exceptions overruled»