Court Opinion

ID: 9685606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:52:33.501821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:08.585739
License: Public Domain

Danhof, J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority that the instant action was instituted within two years as required by the statute, MCLA § 436.22 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 18.993).* Having so decided the only question then to be answered is when service of process must be made upon the defendant. I would apply the provisions of MCLA § 600.5856 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.5856) which provides:
“The statutes of limitations are tolled when * * *
“(3) the complaint is filed and a copy of the summons and complaint in good faith, are placed in the hands of an officer for immediate service, but in this case the statute shall not be tolled longer than 90 days thereafter.”
The facts show that the complaint and summons were placed with the officer one day prior to the two-year limitation and that service was made one day after the two years, but within the 90 days provided above. My colleagues indicate that Holland v. Eaton *137(1964), 373 Mich 34, precludes the use of the statute (MCLA § 600.5856 [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.5856]), hut I believe that Holland can be distinguished. Holland decided only that the case had not been properly instituted within the two-year provision, because the savings provisions of the general statute of limitations were not applicable to the provisions of MCLA § 436.22 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 18.993). The propriety of the service of process was not an issue in Holland. In addition, though decided in 1964 the event upon which the actions in Holland were predicated occurred on February 8, 1960 and the suits were commenced February 14, 1962; thus the rights of the parties were determined at that time. MCLA § 600.5856 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.5856) became effective January 1, 1963 and I see nothing in that section which precludes its use in actions instituted under the so-called dramshop act.
I further note that this Court assumed the applicability of MCLA § 600.5856 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.5856) to dramshop actions in Sera v. Eberlein (1968), 11 Mich App 139, although under the facts of that case service would fail either under the majority rule or my decision.
Thus, for the reasons stated I find that the action was properly instituted as required by MCLA § 436.22 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 18.993) and that there was proper service of process on the defendant.
Affirmed, costs to the plaintiff.

 The dramshop act.