Court Opinion

ID: 9659203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:34:51.298021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:05.063024
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Chief Justice,
concurring in result.
It appears undisputed that this is an action in personam. Appellant resides in Missouri. Service was had on appellant by publication in a Parker, South Dakota, newspaper. The absence of jurisdiction over the person of appellant did not result from any due process failure, as the majority implies. That question is never reached. The trial court simply lacked jurisdiction because appellant was not served as required by statute. While acknowledging this fact, the majority gratuitously, and at points erroneously, discusses whether the service complied with due process.
My analysis of this issue begins with South Dakota’s long-arm statute, SDCL 15-7-2, which appellant admits applies. However, SDCL 15-7-2 must be read in conjunction with SDCL 15-7-3, which states that service on those subject to SDCL 15-7-2 may be made outside South Dakota “in the same manner provided for service within this state[.]”
I part company concerning the type of service within South Dakota which secures jurisdiction over the person. The majority misreads Straub v. Lyman Land & Investment Co., 31 S.D. 571, 141 N.W. 979 (1913), for the proposition that in personam jurisdiction can be obtained via service by publication. Except as hereafter noted, our statutes are clear that jurisdiction over the person can only be obtained by personal service.
Before explaining South Dakota’s statutory scheme for service of process conferring jurisdiction of the person, it is necessary to closely examine Straub. Straub sued a domestic corporation, alleging breach of contract and praying for damages of $300. The summons and complaint were personally served on the treasurer of the corporation at his residence in Lyon County, Iowa. A default judgment was entered against the corporation. The corporation moved to vacate the judgment for want of jurisdiction. The applicable statute simply allowed service of the officers, director or managing agent of a domestic corporation. The majority finds comfort in Straub from the language of an Illinois case quoted therein but which we noted did not provide the basis of our decision. In Straub we further noted that the Illinois Supreme Court, interpreting an Illinois statute (al*293lowing service by publication when the domestic corporation has no officer/agent upon whom summons can be served in the county), held that an in personam judgment could be had against a domestic corporation served by publication. The Straub court did not hold that such service would comply with South Dakota statutes. On the contrary, Straub made clear the court must first see if the statutorily mandated mode of service had been complied with and then determine whether that service accorded the defendant due process.
We think the rule is that, when a citizen of the state is within its territorial jurisdiction, the state may authorize any mode of service reasonably designed and calculated to give him notice of the judicial proceeding impending, and to afford him a reasonable opportunity to defend in its courts, and any statutory mode of service which fulfills these requirements affords ‘due process of law.’ (emphasis added)
Id. at 980. Straub interpreted our South Dakota statute to allow personal service out of state and that such service afforded defendant due process. Straub stressed that its decision was based on the fact that the defendant, because it was a domestic corporation, was “a resident of the state which never was and never can be outside its boundary lines.” Id. Straub was emphatic in stating that “[t]he ease before us, we think, is distinguishable from a case where a natural person, either resident or nonresident, is attempted to be served with process without the boundaries of the state.” Id. at 979. (Emphasis added.)
Service of process within South Dakota is governed by SDCL 15-6 — 1(d). Subsection (d)(9) of that statute requires that defendants, who are not corporations, minors, incompetents or the State of South Dakota, be served personally. SDCL 15-6-4(f) requires that service of nonresident defendants be “in the manner prescribed by the statute.” Hence personal service of individual defendants is the general rule.
An exception to that rule is service by publication. SDCL 15-9-7. As a condition precedent to a valid order for service by publication there must be a proper showing and the court must find that all reasonable means (due diligence) have been used to find the whereabouts of defendant and that the action comes under one of the provisions of SDCL 15-9-8 to -21. Grigsby v. Wopschall, 25 S.D. 564, 127 N.W. 605 (1910). These statutes permit service by publication in actions in rem, quasi in rem, and certain domestic relations actions. Service by publication is also allowed in an action in per-sonam, but only when a resident defendant has left the state to defraud creditors or avoid process. SDCL 15-9-13. Cone v. Ballard, 68 S.D. 593, 5 N.W.2d 46 (1942). In Cone we stressed that, except for SDCL 15-9-13, service by publication does not apply to in personam actions. Since none of the statutes allowing service by publication apply to this case, appellee was required to serve appellant personally, via our “long-arm statute” (SDCL 15-7-2),1 in Missouri because that is the manner provided for service in South Dakota (SDCL 15-7-3). See Ventling v. Kraft, 83 S.D. 465, 161 N.W.2d 29 (1968). In the absence of such personal service, the default judgment is void.
I am hereby authorized to state that Justice WOLLMAN joins in this concurrence in result.

. For a brief history of long-arm jurisdiction, see 69 Michigan Law Review 300 (1970).