Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff sued Defendant for trespass on the case in a court that was not located in the jurisdiction of Defendant’s residence. Defendant alleged that Plaintiff’s attorney procured an alias (second) summons and lured Defendant to a certain location under false pretenses, where Defendant was served with the alias summons by the county sheriff. Defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that service procured by trickery and deceit was ineffective.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. If a defendant can prove that he was served with a summons and complaint only as a result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s agent, the service is ineffective.
Issue. If Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s attorney lied to Defendant in order to have him show up at a certain location for the purpose of serving him with summons for a pending lawsuit, shall the service be effective?
Held. No. The facts alleged by Defendant’s plea in abatement are sufficient to establish ineffective service.
Service of process procured through deceitful means caused by the plaintiff is improper and the court should not exercise jurisdiction over the party served.
When a party lives outside of the jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to lie, deceive or otherwise entice the defendant through fraud so that he may come into the jurisdiction and be served. To hold otherwise would to sanction fraudulent conduct performed by the plaintiff or his agent.
The law will not lend its sanction or support to an act, otherwise lawful, which is accomplished by unlawful means.View Full Point of Law