DocketNumber： 10258
Citation Numbers： 401 P.2d 439, 16 Utah 2d 365, 1965 Utah LEXIS 561
Judges： Crockett, Henriod, McDonough, Wade
Filed Date： 5/4/1965
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result for the reason that I think the service of process on Mooney was good; that the fact that there was a pending motion to quash as to Manning had no significance to any claimed sudden death for the service on Mooney. The procedure as to Manning pertained only to Manning, and it would seem to be unrealistic to conclude, under the statute and authorities, that serving one agent would preclude service of another agent, if the former quickly filed a paper attacking the jurisdiction of the court.
Why, after the main opinion said there was effective service of process on Mooney, which should be decisive in this case, it went into the nebulous areas of “doing business,” and serving the “Secretary of State,” I don’t know. This court and many others have probed those terrains, and the main opinion’s observations with respect to them well might become a ghost later to haunt this court. In my opinion, Mooney is all important in this case, not the question of doing business here, or the role of the Secretary of State. This was a transitory action bottomed on negligence and could have been instituted here or in any other state by service on an agent — which in this case was Mooney.