Case Title: Hutson v. Martin

Citation: 459 P.2d 999

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1969-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
459 P.2d 999 (1969)
Mary Jo HUTSON, Appellant,
v.
Emile A. MARTIN, Respondent.
Charles L. Hutson, Appellant,
v.
Emile A. Martin, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted September 8, 1969.
Decided October 22, 1969.
Michael F. McClain, Corvallis, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were Ringo, Walton & McClain, Corvallis.
Robert H. Grant, Medford, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Kelly, Grant & Cooney, Medford.
McALLISTER, Justice.
This damage action was filed on September 22, 1967, to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident that occurred in Klamath County on October 20, 1965. Plaintiff attempted to serve defendant by substituted service on the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles as authorized by ORS 15.190. The defendant appeared specially and moved to quash the service. Defendant's motion to quash was allowed and in due course judgment on the pleadings was entered in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
The question on appeal is whether the court erred in quashing the service of summons.
ORS 15.190(3) provides in pertinent part as follows:
Defendant contends that the "due diligence" required by the statute was not *1000 shown by the affidavit in this case. The affidavit was dated October 17, 1967, and read as follows:
We have recently reaffirmed the well-established rules applicable to this case, State ex rel. Carroll v. Redding, 245 Or. 81, 418 P.2d 846 (1956); State ex rel. Pratt v. Main, Or., 454 P.2d 643 (1969). In Carroll we held that a "strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary" to withstand a direct attack on the service of summons. 245 Or. at 85, 418 P.2d  at 848. We further said:
Viewed in the light of the above rules we think the affidavit was inadequate. It appears from the affidavit:
Since the plaintiff presumably requested the sheriff to serve defendant at his last known address we assume that the Rowland Hills address was the one from which defendant moved on or about September 5, 1967. The affidavit does not disclose how plaintiff obtained the Rowland Hills address and does not tell why plaintiff could not ascertain from the same source defendant's new address. The plaintiff apparently made no further effort to determine the whereabouts of defendant, although, as we recently pointed out in State ex rel. Pratt v. Main, supra, that information might have been obtained from the Los Angeles postoffice. It appears from the trial court file that a letter mailed to defendant at the Rowland Hills address was forwarded to and received by him.
*1001 At most, the affidavit established that for some unknown period prior to about September 5, 1967, the defendant resided in Los Angeles County. In our opinion this does not establish that defendant could not be found in Oregon six weeks later when plaintiff's affidavit was filed.
The judgment is affirmed.