Court Opinion

ID: 9695227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:13:04.807145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:28.148130
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
The appellant has filed a petition for rehearing in which he indicates that this court overlooked the law pronounced in the case of Roberts v. Enderlin Investment Co., 21 N.D. 594, 600, 132 N.W. 145. We carefully examined the above case referred to before the opinion was prepared, but did not deem it applicable to the facts involved in the case at bar.
The Roberts case shows that the affidavit for publication of the summons was filed on August 12, 1908; that the first publication of the summons was on the 14th day of August, and the sheriff’s return was made and filed on the 25th day of August, thirteen days after the affidavit was filed and eleven days after the first publication of the summons, and after the summons had been twice published. The summons was only published four times after the sheriff’s return was filed. The court held in that case that this was not a sufficient compliance with the statute to confer jurisdiction on the court to enter any judgment against the defendant in absence of any appearance by him in the action. It further held that by the great weight of authority, the rule is that statutes providing for service of summons in any other manner than by personal service must be complied with and strictly followed to render effective an attempted service of summons by publication.
In the case at bar the facts show that the summons and complaint came into the hands of the sheriff for service on the 22nd day of April 1944; that the' sheriff made his return on the 26th day of April 1944; that the affidavit for service of summons by' publication was signed by the plaintiff’s attorney on that date and that the summons, complaint, sheriff’s return and affidavit for service by publication were all filed on the 26th day of April 1944. There was strict compliance with the' requirements of the 'statute.' ■
■ The appellant refers to the following statement made in the Roberts case:
“The statute requires, in such cases, that the inquiry by the sheriff for the purpose of serving the summons be made prior to the making and filing of the affidavit.”
It is interesting to note that the above quoted statement from the North Dakota Report does not appear in the same language in the decision as reported in 132 N.W. 145. At page 147 thereof, for some unknown reason, the official report of the decision as contained in the North Dakota Report was changed to read:
“ * * * he (the sheriff) is unable to make personal service thereof, requires that such return of the sheriff, for the purpose of serving the summons, be made prior to the making and filing of the affidavit.” (Emphasis supplied.)
We know of no statute that requires that the inquiry of the sheriff for the purpose of making and serving the summons be made prior to the making of the affidavit.
The pertinent question involved is simply what does Section 28^0620(4) require? It requires that when an affidavit for publication of the summons shows that personal service cannot be had upon a defendant in this state to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the person making the affidavit, such affidavit must be accompanied by a return of the sheriff of the county in which the action is brought stating that after diligent inquiry for the purpose of serving such summons, he is un*526able to make personal service thereof upon such defendant. This return must be filed with the affidavit. When this has been done the requirements of the statute have been met. The sheriff’s return, of necessity, must be made prior to the filing of the affidavit since the statute requires that the affidavit be accompanied by the return. The presumption would be that the inquiry was made prior to the filing of the affidavit when, as here, the facts show that the sheriff, had the summons and complaint in his possession for four days prior to making his return. Strict compliance with all the statutory requirements invoked the jurisdiction of the court in the action of Edward' Will to quiet title against Axel Pearson, et-al. *
The judgment entered in that action cannot be collaterally attacked in this action.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
BURKE, C. J., and JOHNSON/ GRIM-SON, MORRIS and SATHRE, JJ., concur.