97-339

 No. 97-339

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

1997

DEBORA L. YARBOROUGH,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA, A POLITICAL

SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,

 Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Ninth Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Glacier,

 The Honorable Marc G. Buyske, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellant:

 Ann C. German, Attorney at Law, Libby, Montana

 For Respondent:

 Gary M. Zadick; Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick & Higgins, P.C.;

 Great Falls, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: October 9, 1997

 Decided: November 25, 1997

Filed:

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

Justice Terry N. Trieweiler delivered the Opinion of the Court.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-339%20Opinion.htm (1 of 6)4/17/2007 4:23:40 PM
97-339

 The plaintiff, Debora L. Yarborough, filed a complaint in the District Court for

the Ninth Judicial District in Glacier County in which she alleged that the 

defendant,

Glacier County, had breached the written contract by which it had agreed to employ 

her. 

Glacier County moved to dismiss the complaint based on its contention that 

Yarborough's

summons was not served in compliance with Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P. That motion was

granted by the District Court and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. 

Yarborough appeals from the District Court's order dismissing her complaint. We

reverse the order and judgment of the District Court.

 The issue on appeal is whether Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P., requires the summons

which was originally issued within one year from the date on which the action was

commenced be served, or whether an identical duplicate issued more than one year 

after

the commencement of the action can serve the same purpose. 

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 The plaintiff, Debora L. Yarborough, filed her complaint in the District Court 

on

July 8, 1993. She alleged that on June 3, 1991, the defendant, Glacier County, had

contracted with her in writing to pay her a salary and benefits for her services, 

but that

the County had breached the contract by refusing to perform according to its terms. 

She

sought damages based on the salary which the County had allegedly agreed to pay, plus

other benefits which were promised by the written agreement. 

 On the same day that her complaint was filed, Yarborough had issued, by the

Clerk of Court, an original summons. That summons, together with a copy of the

complaint, was sent by Yarborough's attorney to the Glacier County Attorney with a

request that he acknowledge service on February 14, 1994. On the following day, the

Glacier County Attorney responded by letter that he would not accept service and 

that the

summons and complaint would have to be personally served on the Chairman of the

County Commissioners. 

 At some time subsequent to February 15, 1994, the original summons was lost. 

Yarborough's attorney then sent a duplicate of the original summons to the Clerk of 

the

District Court and requested that it be reissued. The duplicate summons was 

identical to

the original summons. In fact, it appears to have been photocopied, except that it 

was

retitled "duplicate summons" and bears the following statement at the bottom prior 

to the

Clerk's signature line: "NOTE: DUPLICATE SUMMONS ISSUED this 23rd day of

June, 1995."

 The duplicate summons was served with a copy of the complaint on the Glacier

County Commissioners on October 3, 1995. 

 On October 18, 1995, Glacier County moved for dismissal of Yarborough's

complaint based on her failure to serve the summons and complaint as required by Rule

41(e), M.R.Civ.P., and based on her alleged failure to prosecute her cause of 

action. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-339%20Opinion.htm (2 of 6)4/17/2007 4:23:40 PM
97-339

The basis for its motion was its contention that the duplicate summons was not issued

within one year from the date on which the action was commenced and, therefore, was

untimely. The District Court denied that motion for the reason that the original 

summons

was issued on time and the duplicate summons, which was identical in all significant

respects, was served on time. The District Court further found no prejudice which 

would

warrant dismissing Yarborough's complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule

41(b), M.R.Civ.P.

 On March 31, 1997, following this Court's decisions in Busch v. Atkinson (1996),

278 Mont. 478, 925 P.2d 874, and Haugen v. Blaine Bank of Montana (1996), 279

Mont. 1, 926 P.2d 1364, Glacier County moved the District Court to reconsider its 

prior

order denying its motion to dismiss and grant that motion based on these subsequent

decisions. Glacier County contended that these cases require that Rule 41(e) be 

applied

literally and that doing so requires dismissal of Yarborough's complaints. 

 The District Court agreed, and on April 18, 1997, it vacated its prior order 

which

denied Glacier County's motion to dismiss and ordered that Yarborough's complaint be

dismissed with prejudice.

 DISCUSSION

 Does Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P., require the summons which was originally issued

within one year from the date on which the action was commenced be served, or does an

identical duplicate issued more than one year after the commencement of the action 

serve

the same purpose?

 The District Court's order which dismissed Yarborough's complaint was based on

a conclusion of law. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine

whether the court's interpretation of the law is correct. Haugen v. Blaine Bank of

Montana (1996), 279 Mont. 1, 5, 926 P.2d 1364, 1366. 

 The relevant part of Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P., provides as follows: 

[A]ll actions heretofore or hereafter commenced shall be dismissed by the

court in which the same shall have been commenced, on its own motion,

or on the motion of any party interested therein . . . unless summons shall

have been issued within 1 year, or unless summons issued within one year

shall have been served and filed with the clerk of the court within 3 years

after the commencement of said action, or unless appearance has been made

by the defendant or defendants therein within said 3 years.

 Yarborough contends that it is inconsistent with the purpose and substance of

Rule 41(e) to hold that merely because the original piece of paper, which was timely

issued, is lost after the first year from its issuance, timely service cannot be 

satisfied by

substitution of an identical copy. In reliance on our decision in Larango v. Lovely

(1981), 196 Mont. 43, 637 P.2d 517, she contends that the Rules of Civil Procedure

should be construed to facilitate the resolution of disputes on their merits, rather 

than

arguable procedural irregularities. She contends that she was perfectly authorized 

to have

an additional summons issued by Rule 4C(1), M.R.Civ.P., and the mere fact that she

referred to it as a "duplicate" rather than a "separate or additional summons" 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-339%20Opinion.htm (3 of 6)4/17/2007 4:23:40 PM
97-339

should not

be a basis for dismissal of her complaint.

 Glacier County counters that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a

"duplicate" summons; that pursuant to our decisions in Association of Unit Owners v. 

Big

Sky (1986), 224 Mont. 142, 729 P.2d 469, Busch, and Haugen, Rule 41(e) is to be

applied literally; and that in this case Yarborough did not literally comply with 

Rule 41(e)

because she did not serve a summons which had been issued within a year on Glacier

County.

 We conclude that the cases relied upon by the County and the District Court are

distinguishable on their facts and in important respects, and that by serving, 

within three

years, an identical copy of an original summons which had been issued within one 

year,

Yarborough complied with the substance and literal purpose of Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P. 

We conclude that to require more would exalt form over substance and do nothing to

further the resolution of controversies on their merits which, after all, as we 

explained

in Larango, is the ultimate purpose of our Rules of Civil Procedure. Larango, 196

Mont. at 47, 637 P.2d at 519.

 In Association of Unit Owners, the plaintiffs had a summons issued within one 

year

from the date on which their complaint was filed, but that summons did not name all 

of

the defendants who were ultimately listed in the amended complaint. Fifteen months 

after

the original summons was issued, additional summonses were issued which were marked

"duplicate summons"; however, the "duplicate" summonses were altered to the extent 

that

they added the names of additional defendants. Association of Unit Owners, 224 Mont.

at 148, 729 P.2d at 471. We noted that our Rules do not provide for a "duplicate"

summons, but more importantly, stated that "[w]e disregard the terminology in the 

title

of the summons." Association of Unit Owners, 224 Mont. at 148, 729 P.2d at 472. In

other words, in that case the content of the summons was more important than its 

title. 

We held in that case that the summonses issued more than a year after the action was

commenced did not relate back to the date on which the original summons was issued

because the content of the summons had been changed. We specifically stated:

 We are not able to relate the actual service back to the summons

properly issued on February 18, 1983, because that summons failed to

name any of the six defendants in its caption or anywhere else in the

summons. As a result, that summons would have been inadequate to give

notice to these six defendants because of the absence of the defendants'

names in the summons.

 Association of Unit Owners, 224 Mont. at 148, 729 P.2d at 472 (emphasis added).

 In Association of Unit Owners, we affirmed the district court's dismissal 

pursuant

to Rule 41(e), but specifically because the summonses issued after one year had 

expired

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-339%20Opinion.htm (4 of 6)4/17/2007 4:23:40 PM
97-339

were changed in substance from the original summons. Those are not the facts in this

case.

 In Busch, we held that a plaintiff's complaint would not be dismissed for 

failure

to issue the summons within one year of the date on which the action was commenced

pursuant to Rule 41(e) because, pursuant to Rule 4C(1), it was the clerk of court's

obligation to issue the summons. Busch, 278 Mont. at 485, 925 P.2d at 878.

 In Haugen, we affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint when, contrary

to the plain language of Rule 41(e), the sheriff's affidavit that the summons had 

been

served was not filed with the clerk of court within three years after the 

commencement

of that action. We held that the plaintiffs had shown a lack of diligence, and that 

the

delay which resulted was the kind of delay Rule 41(e) was intended to prevent. 

Haugen,

279 Mont. at 6-7, 926 P.2d at 1367. Neither the facts nor the legal issues 

presented in

Busch and Haugen are present in this case.

 In this case, Yarborough's summons was issued within one year from the date on

which her action was commenced and would have been served within three years from

that date had it not been lost. When it was lost, a summons which was identical 

except

for the title was issued and, although not issued within one year from the date on 

which

the action was commenced, it was served within three years from that date. As we 

stated

in Association of Unit Owners, "[w]e disregard that terminology in the title of the

summons" and look to its substance. Association of Unit Owners, 224 Mont. at 148, 

729

P.2d at 472. In substance, the summons served on Glacier County was identical to the

original summons which had originally been issued. Glacier County received the same

notice in exactly the same form it would have received had the original summons not

been lost. While Glacier County complains about the delay in service, the delay is

authorized by statute. In this case, an exact copy of the original summons was 

served

on the County in less than three years from the date on which the action was 

commenced. 

Rule 41(e) gave Yarborough three years to serve and file her summons. Therefore, no

prejudice can be demonstrated by Glacier County from the mere fact that it received a

copy of the original summons, rather than the original.

 In any given suit, significant interests may be at stake. The success or 

failure of

a business, title to the family homestead, or the quality of a life could hinge on 

the

outcome. No system of justice worthy to be identified as such would resolve those

interests on the basis that the original piece of paper (intended solely to notify 

the other

party of the suit) was lost when an exact copy can serve the same purpose.

 A system, hundreds of years old, which exists solely to resolve controversies on

their merits, cannot be paralyzed by the loss of one piece of paper which does no 

more

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-339%20Opinion.htm (5 of 6)4/17/2007 4:23:40 PM
97-339

than tell the other party to file an answer in twenty days. While literal 

consideration of

our Rules of Procedure is a necessary starting point, common sense is also necessary 

to

people's confidence in the law.

 For these reasons, we conclude that the plaintiff, Debora L. Yarborough, has

complied with Rule 41(e), M.R.Civ.P. We reverse the order and judgment of the

District Court and remand this case to the District Court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

 /S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

We Concur:

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-339%20Opinion.htm (6 of 6)4/17/2007 4:23:40 PM