Horrigan Contracting Co. v. Columbia Insurance

89 A. 210, 27 Del. 454, 4 Boyce 454, 1913 Del. LEXIS 67
Superior Court of Delaware·Decided October 6, 1913·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pennewill, C. J.,

delivering the opinion of the court:

This return shows an attempted service upon the insurance [457] commissioner by leaving a copy, and we think that inasmuch as an alternative service is provided for in the statute, a service by leaving a copy would not be a legal service. The statute expressly provides how service shall be made in the absence of the insurance commissioner, and that is, upon some person in the office designated by the commissioner. Upon such person process may be served, and manifestly the statute means that it shall be personal service. Moreover, service by copy can only be made by authority of statute, and no such authority is given expressly or by implication.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Horrigan Contracting Co. v. Columbia Insurance, 89 A. 210, 27 Del. 454, 4 Boyce 454, 1913 Del. LEXIS 67 (Del. Ct. App. 1913).

89 A. 210 (Horrigan Contracting Co. v. Columbia Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related