The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-04-30
Supreme Court Holds That
Service Must Be Made at
Usual Place of Abode"
PROCESS SERVER WOULD
BE BUSY FELLOW, INDEED
Case Involves Point of Where
Apostle Heller j. Grant Lived
When He Was Wanted.

he regarded as one long sweet dream,
if the significance of an opinion handed
down by the Utah supreme court Fri
day is taken into account In effect.
the opinion holds that the process server
must find the fellow he is looking for,
and that il Will not do at all TO leave
the orders of the court at the home of
anv of polygamist's wives he must
find the particular family with which
the polygamist is living mt the time.
Now, in the case Of the late Heber
Kimball, for example, an officer of the
court would needs have extraordinary
means OF locomotion to make the rounds
Of all the households within a reasonable
period Of time.
The case in point at this time is the
ono in which llebcr j. Grant. the singing
apostle of the Mormon church, is con-
ccTned Elder Grant wins
When Grant Went to England.
II appears that while Apostle Grant
WIS on his mission IN England. and
where he was bent on charming large
hut exceedingly unwilling audiences
with his magnificent voice. n man with
q summons was looking for him, This
man. not fully aware of the devious
ways of the polygamist in changing his
place of residence with the facility with
which chameleon changes its color, fell
into the error of leaving the summons
with the FIRST and legal wife OF The war
bling Heber. The crring messenger now
finds that he should have run TIcbcr down
and poked the process under his nose,
instead of leaving it lying around care
lessly in one of Elder Grant IS house
holds.
The departure of Elder Grant for
England, while not exactly relevant 10
the case under consideration, recalls an
interesting bit of history IT will he
remembered that the call for Elder
Grant came suddenly from the fountain
head in the Bee Hive houGe. Ii came
so suddenly. in fact, that all except
Elder Grant and few of the high &c
clcsiastics were unutterably surprised.
4 strange coincidence was that Elder
Grant s mission call came at the time
when there was warrant out for tho ar
rest of Mr.. Grant for unlawful coha bi
tation. II was said at The time that
the sheriff and his officers kept the
existence of the warrant profound
secret. hut that, by means of a revela-
ton, Elder Grant learned of il. The
'act Of the existence Of the warrant, Of
course, had no bearing on the swift.
ness with which Mr. Grant departed in
his response 10 the call of suffering hui
inanity. Seeing that he knew nothing
about the warrant. how could it have
had any bearing on the rapidity Of MIR.
hIanl movements
Facts in the Case.
The opinion is in ease entitled
ilebcr j. Grant. respondent vs.. Frank
lin Lawrence. appellant. In The undis
ruted facts occur this recital: That with
the exception of the wears as n resident
ot Ioocle county, this state, and two
years while on mission in Japan, and
three further years while on mission
IN EngIand-sevon years in all-the re.
spondcnt has been resident of Salt
Lake City, all his life; that al the time
of the trial and for many years prior
hereto he was engaged in the insurance
business in Salt Lake City, and that
there was no interruption in the conduct
ot said business while respondent was
absent IN Japan and England as nfore-
SAID: that respondent. In Nav. 1884
married one Augusta w. Grant, and
thereafter, and while said Augusta was
still living and continued to be his
wife, he also married one Emily w
Grant, the latter becoming his plural
wife; and when respondent went TO
England he took with him said Emily
w. Grant and her six children, aud she
and respondent established housckeep.
ing IN tho city of Liverpool and lived
together with said children as a familv,
that Augusta w. Grant remained i'm Salt
Lake City and after respondent had dc.
soJourning in England, said Augusta W.
Grant erected a dwelling house at ia
East South Temple street: that the
house was paid for by money furnished
by the respondent; that Augusta and
her chi Id, during respondents absence
IN England, moved into the house and
lived therein, but that the respondent
had never seen the house nor lived
therein when the summons was served,
When he returned, however, the re.
spondent did live in the house with
Augusta.
On April %, 1906, while Grant WAS in
England Lawrence began an action to
quiet tltJe to certain real estate, in
which judgment was entered uuietino
the title IN Lawrence. Grant was a de.
fendant IN the action and the only ser
vice made on him was by one Brun.
uer who made return to the effect that
he left \ copy at the house at ia Fast
South Temple street, 1t is also con
coded that Grant had no knowledge of
the entry of the Judgment until more
Than year after 1t was entered, that
the present action was begun within n
reasonable time after he had obtained
knowledge Of the judgment and that he
had ga probable dcfensc' to quiet
title.
Upon these facts the district court
nrdde conclusions of the law by which
of summons was not legal service and
that the district court did not acquire
jurisdiction Of the person Of Grant
Upon this ground the former Judgment
quieting title in Lawrence was set aside
so far as it affected Grant Lawrence
took the appeal.
Service of Summons,
The supreme court discusses tho case
on the question of jurisdiction. The
service was what is usually designated
as substituted service; that is, service
not personal service
Respondent contcnds.' SAYS the
opinion, "and the court found. that
No ia East South Temple street, where
Augusta W. Grant, the wife of rcspon.
dent, and her child lived when the
service of summons was made in the
former action, was not his usual place Of
abode within the purview Of our statute,
but that at said time, his usual place
Of abode was in Liverpool. England,
where he lived with Emily w. Grant
and her children aforesaid -
After citing aut thorities, the court