Title: State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Redding

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Peremptory writ allowed October 12, 1966.
Petition for rehearing denied November 22, 1966.
*82 James B. O'Hanlon, Portland, argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the briefs were Mautz, Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey & Williamson, and Thomas M. Triplett, Portland.
Philip A. Levin, Portland, argued the cause for defendant. With him on the brief were Pozzi, Levin & Wilson, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, Justices.
PEREMPTORY WRIT ALLOWED.
HOLMAN, J.
Plaintiff-relator (relator) is the defendant in an action brought by one Smith. Relator filed a motion to quash the service of summons in that action which the defendant, as judge of the circuit court, overruled. Relator then petitioned this court for the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus directing defendant to quash the service of summons or to show cause why he had not done so. This court accepted jurisdiction and issued the alternative writ to which defendant answered and relator in turn replied, thus putting at issue the effectiveness of the service in the original case.
Relator and Smith were involved in an automobile accident in Multnomah County. Smith thereafter filed an action for damages and presented the court with a motion and affidavit for an order authorizing him to serve relator by serving the Director of Motor Vehicles pursuant to the provisions of ORS 15.190(3). *83 The order issued and service was made on the Director as requested. It is the validity of this service which is in question.
ORS 15.190(3) provides as follows:
Relator's principal contention is that Smith's affidavit is insufficient in that it did not, as a prerequisite to service on the Director, show due diligence in attempting to locate relator within the state. The affidavit was as follows:
*84 1. The affidavit must contain positive averments of probative or evidentiary facts from which the judge issuing the order for substituted service can find that the due diligence required by the statute has been exercised. Ashford v. Ashford, 201 Or 206, 214-215, 249 P2d 968, 268 P2d 382 (1954). In re Estate of Meyers, 197 Or 520, 535, 254 P2d 227 (1953), concurring opinion of BRAND, J.; Felts v. Boyer, 73 Or 83, 90-91, 144 P 420 (1914).
2. The sole fact alleged is that affiant was informed by business associates of relator that relator was, at the time of the inquiry, residing at a certain address in Nevada. Assuming the inquiry was sufficient, the affidavit does not say when the inquiry was made. There is nothing from which the court could conclude that the information was received recently enough that a diligent person would be justified in relying on it at the time of the issuance of the order authorizing service upon the Director. The accident occurred almost two years prior to the presenting of the affidavit to the court and the information could have been secured from the business associates of relator at any time during that period. In Laughlin v. Hughes et al, 161 Or 295, 89 P2d 568 (1939), an affidavit was filed reciting efforts to locate a defendant within the state as a prerequisite to an order for publication of summons. It alleged an attempt to locate defendant at certain addresses where affiant was informed defendant might be located. This court made the following relevant statement at page 302 concerning the time the calls were made by affiant at the addresses in question:
3. This is a direct attack on the sufficiency of the service of summons. A more strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary than in the case of a collateral attack. Ashford v. Ashford, supra at page 218; Moore Realty Co. v. Carr, 61 Or 34, 37, 120 P 742 (1912); Pike v. Kennedy, 15 Or 420, 427, 15 P 637 (1887).
The affidavit is insufficient to sustain the service and a peremptory writ of mandamus will issue directing the defendant to quash the service of summons.