Armstrong v. Brant

Citations

• 44 S.C. 177
• 21 S.E. 634
• 1895 S.C. LEXIS 64

Syllabus

<p>1. Non-Residents — Service—Jurisdiction.—Under the terms of section 156 of the Code of Procedure, a non-resident defendant can be served only by publication of summons or by personal service out of the State after publication ordered. When, therefore, order for publication was obtained, but no publication made, and the only service was by copy left with a person of discretion at defendant’s residence, there was no valid service, even though a warrant of attachment had been issued and levied on defendant’s property in this State. Therefore, a judgment entered on such insufficient service was void for want of jurisdiction of the person.1</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Ibid.—Statutes.—The act of 1892, 21 Stat., 104, providing a substituted service by copy left in lieu of the personal service required by section 155 of the Code, as to defendants within the State, cannot be extended to apply to the service on non-resident defendants required by section 156.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Ibid.—Revised Statutes. — -This construction is strengthened by the incorporation of the amendment of 1892 into section 155 of the Code, and its omission from section 156 in the revision of 1893; for while the Revised Statutes of 1893 were not enacted as statutes are required to be, and, therefore; have not of themselves the force of law, yet they have, by a statute, been approved as a revision, digest, and arrangement of the statute law of the State.</p> <p>4. Case Criticised. — Gibson v. Everett, 41 S. G., 22, approved, and distinguished from this case.</p> <p>5. Attachment — Judgment.—-Levying an attachment is a fruitless proceeding, where no valid judgment can be obtained in the main action.</p>