Case ID: miss_108/html/0054-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Cook, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Supreme Ruling of Fraternal Mystic Circle v. Sommers.
    [66 South. 322.]
    Corporations. Actions against. Service of process. Return.
    
    ■In a suit against a corporation, where there is nothing anywhere in the record to show what relation, if any, the person upon whom the summons was served bears to the defendant, and the declaration does not connect the person, to whom the summons was delivered, with the defendant, nor does the judgment of the court find that he was the representative of the defendant upon whom a summons might be served, a judgment by default will be set aside.
    Appeal from tlie circuit court of Washington county.
    Hon. J. M. Cashin, Judge.
    Suit by Margaret A. Sommers against the Supreme Ruling of the Fraternal Mystic Circle. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Tbe facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      Cutrer S Jolmston, for appellant.
    
      Watson & Jayne, for appellee.
   Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment by default, rendered by the circuit court of "Washington county, upon a declaration filed by appellee against appellant, upon an alleged contract of insurance. The declaration avers that the ‘ ‘ Supreme Ruling of the Fraternal Mystic Circle is a benefit society doing business in and having subordinate lodges in Washington county.” A summons was issued on this declaration, which commanded the sheriff to summon the “Suppreme Ruling of the Fraternal Mystic Circle, if to be found in your county,” etc. The sheriff’s return of the summons is as follows:

“Received this first day of November, 1911.
“Thos. Worthington, Sheriff,
By S. P. Akin, D. S.
“Executed the within process this first day of November, 1911, upon the defendant, the Supreme Ruling of the Fraternal Mystic Circle, in person, by handing Hy. Schawl a true copy thereof.
Thos. Worthington, Sheriff,
By George W. Phillips, D. S.”

There is nothing anywhere in the record to show what relation, if any, the person upon whom the summons was served bears to the defendant. The declaration does not connect the person to whom the summons was delivered with the defendant, nor does the judgment of the court find that he was the representative of the society upon whom a summons might be served.

Reversed and remanded.