Court Opinion

ID: 9844491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:03:32.545763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:35.916107
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice.
I concur in the result. I do not believe, however, as the main opinion asserts, that this court might take judicial notice of the fact that a soldier’s presence at any one place will be temporary, and taking such notice is not justified, I believe, by any decision of this court’or under the provisions of Title 78-25-1, U.C.A.1953, dealing with matters of which the courts may judicially notice.
Although they are factors to be considered in every case, those listed by the main opinion as pointing to residency are not so significantly applicable to soldiers as to other persons, since the former seldom establish quarters themselves, and almost never have bank or charge accounts, or telephone listings in their own names.
It is my opinion that the statute for substituted service involved in this case, very carefully should be administered, since, admittedly designed to protect our own residents against transient hit-run non-residents, it could be used as an instrument for oppression if one having a poor or unmeritorious case could refrain from serving pros-ess personally, having ample opportunity so to do, and then wait until he reasonably is sure the defendant is far and away, and unable to return and defend himself, before substituted service is accomplished.