Court Opinion

ID: 9809002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:58:07.204129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:42.318139
License: Public Domain

Clare:, O. J.,
dissenting: Under Eev., 429, a civil action is ■ “commenced” by issuing the summons. But it is “pending” only from service of the summons or acceptance thereof. Eev., 445, provides: “From the time of service of the summons in a civil action or the allowance of a provisional remedy, the court is deemed to have acquired, and to have control of all subsequent proceedings.” It would seem clear that until the court has thus acquired jurisdiction, the cause is not “pending” in said court. It is merely “commenced” by the issuing of the summons. ■
This is clearly held in Simmons v. Simmons, 62 N. C., 65, in which it is said: “It seems, therefore, to be settled that a suit is not pending until the return, or' at least until service of process.” That case is fully discussed by Beade, J., with citation of authorities. That ruling was cited and approved, Lynch v. Lynch, 62 N. C., 46, and has never been overruled. While that case was decided prior to the adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was a construction of the meaning of the words “suit pending,” and the use of the words thereafter in the Code of Civil Procedure is presumed to have been with the knowledge and an adoption of the construction placed by the courts upon that phrase. This construction has not been changed by any statute, nor has it been ruled otherwise.
Webster v. Laws, 86 N. C., 119, merely holds that when a magistrate’s warrant was “not served, it was exhausted on 9 August, the day fixed for its return, and the action was in law then' discontinued.” In that case the warrant in the second *476action was issued on 9 August, and as the other action'bad been discontinued, there was no other action “pending” on 20. August, when judgment was' rendered in the latter case.
It would seem that this is the recognized ruling in this' State, and it is amply sustained by authorities elsewhere, some of which are: 1 Cyc., 23, which says: “It is held that an action is not pending,'to be available in abatement, until after service of the writ or of other process therein,” citing Kirby v. Jackson, 42 Vt., 552; Morton v. Webb, 7 Vt., 123; Downer v. Garland, 21 Vt., 362; Primm v. Gray, 10 Cal., 522; Weaver v. Conger, 10 Cal., 233; Burton Co. v. Cowan, 80 Hun. (New York), 392; s. c., 30 N. Y. Supp., 317; Warner v. Warner, 6 Misc. (N. Y.), 249; s. c., 27 N. Y. Supp., 160. 1 Cyc., 24, also cites Webster v. Laws, 86 N. C., 178, that “where process is not served on the day fixed for its return, the action is discontinued. Consequently such action cannot be pleaded in abatement of an action commenced on the return day of the first process.”
In Byne v. Byne, 1 Rich. (S. O.), 438, it is held that illegal service of process does not constitute the pendency of an action which will bar the bringing of another suit. Indeed, it has been held in 1 Cyc., 24, in some cases that the summons must not only be served, but returned and entered, before it can be pleaded, citing Perkins v. Perkins, 7 Conn., 558; Com. v. Churchill, 5 Mass., 174; Bullock v. Bolles, 9 R. I., 501; Reynolds v. McClure, 13 Ala., 159; Dean v. Massey, 7 Ala., 601. Also 1 Enc. L. and P., 1084, citing Burlingham v. Cooper, 36 Neb., 73; Trust Co. v. Atherton, 67 Neb., 305; Pollock v. Pollock, 2 Ohio Cir. Ct., 140; Clark v. Helms, 1 Root (Conn.), 486; and numerous other cases in that State. Later cases are Monroe v. Millizen, 113 Ill. App., 157; Guinn v. Elliott, 123 Iowa, 79; McMaham v. Hubbard, 217 Mo., 624; Hart v. Hart, 83 N. Y. Supp., 897.
As to ancillary remedies under our Code, it is not required that any of them be issued after the action is pending. It is required that such orders in Arrest and Bail “may be made to accompany the summons or to issue at any time afterwards before judgment.” (Rev., 731.) In Attachment, “to accompany the *477summons or at any time after tbe commencement of tbe action” (Rev., 131); in Claim and Delivery, “at tbe time of issuing tbe summons or at any time before answer” (Rev., 790) ; as to Injunctions, “at tbe time of commencing' tbe action or at any time afterwards, before judgment” (Rev., 810). As to receivers, tbe same rule applies “as is provided for injunctions” (Rev., 846).
Upon tbe reason of tbe thing, as well as upon authority, an action should not be forbidden to be brought simply because tbe other party has issued a summons, but this should be only after jurisdiction of tbe action is “acquired by service of a summons” (Rev., 445), for until then tbe defendant is not in court, and tbe case is not “pending.” See Worth v. Bank, 121 N. C., 348, 349.
Any other construction would lead to much abuse, for a party who might wish to delay a proceeding could issue tbe summons to Ms own county and by successiye aliases keep tbe cause in existence so that tbe other party, especially if living in another county, would be held up and barred from bringing an action there. When, however, tbe other party has been served and brought into court be can set up bis counterclaim. This be cannot do if tbe mere issuing and reissuing,, of tbe summons, without service, is a pending action. This course would at least enable a party who wishes to put off litigation to do so always by tbe mere issuing of a summons at a cost of a few cents, and thus preempt tbe venue for bis own county, when tbe defendant lives in another, and be can continue to do so.
Upon tbe facts in this case, tbe judgment of tbe court below should be
Affirmed.