Huntington v. Supreme Commandery

Citations

• 261 Pa. 168
• 104 A. 498
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 705

Syllabus

<p>Actions — Actions in personam — Service of process — Service by publication — Service outside jurisdiction — Failure to serve — Fffect —Beneficial associations — Death benefit certificates — Suits—Time for bringing suits — By-laws—Construction.</p> <p>1. Where the entire object of an action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the defendants, that is, where the suit is merely in personam, constructive service by publication upon a nonresident is ineffectual for any purpose. Process from the tribunals of one state can not run into another state, and summon parties there domiciled to leave its territory and to respond to proceedings against them. Publication of process or notice within the state where the tribunal sits can not create any greater obligation upon the nonresident to appear. Process sent to him out of the state, and process published within it, are equally unavailing in proceedings to establish his personal liability.</p> <p>2. A beneficial society organized under the laws of Massachusetts and a similar society organized under the laws of Tennessee were consolidated by an agreement whereby the entire membership of the Massachusetts society was merged in the membership of the Tennessee society. Thereafter a suit in equity was brought in Tennessee against both societies, alleging that the Tennessee society had no right to form said consolidation and praying that the agreement of merger be cancelled. The Massachusetts society was not served with process and did not appear; hut notice was given to it by publication in accordance with the laws of Tennessee. A decree pro confesso was entered for the plaintiff. In an action by a beneficiary under a death benefit certificate which had been issued by the Massachusetts society prior to the merger, against the Tennessee society, defendant contended that the agreement of merger between the two societies had been cancelled by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, and that, therefore, the plaintiff had n