SERVICE. In Contracts. The being em ployed to serve another.
In cases of seduction, the gist of the action is not the injury which the seducer has in flicted on the parent by destroying his peace of mind and the reputation of his child, but for the consequent inability to perform those services for which she was accountable to her master or her parent, who assumes this character for the purpose. See SEDUC TION.' In Feudal Law. That duty which the ten ant owed to his lord by reason of his fee or estate.
The services, in respect of their quality, were either free or base, and in respect of their quantity, and the time of exacting them, were either certain or uncertain. 2 Bla. Com. 62.
In Civil Law. A servitude.
In Practice. The execution of a writ or process. Thus, to serve a writ of capias sig nifies to arrest a defendant under the pro cess ; Kirb. 48 ; Gage v. Graffam, 11 Mass. ,181; to serve a summons is to deliver a copy of it at the house of the party, or to deliver it to him personally, or to read it to him: notices and other papers are served by deliv ering the same at the house of the party, or to him in person. The manner of service is usually statutory.
But where personal service is impossible, through the non-residence or absence of a party, constructive service by publication is, in• some cases, permitted, and is effected by publishing the paper to be served in a news paper designated in the order of court and by mailing a copy of the japer to the last known address of the party, or as regulated by stat ute.
Substituted service is a constructive service made upon some recognized representative, as where a statute requires a foreign insurance' company doing business in the state of Mas sachusetts to appoint the insurance commis sicner of the state their attorney, "upon whom all lawful processes in any proceeding against the company may be served with like effect as if the company existed in that com monwealth." Questions are constantly aris ing as to the validity of service on some par ticular agent of a foreign corporation with in state statutes giving jurisdiction in suits against such corporations. It was held in Louisiana that any service sufficient as against a domestic corporation might be, by law, sufficient against a foreign one, and con sequently, that such service might be made upon the president of the latter while tempo rarily within the jurisdiction of the court in which the suit was. commenced; In re Cur
tis, 115 La. 918, 40 South. 334, 112 Am. St. Rep. 284, 5 Ann. Cas. 950 ; but the rule laid down by the federal courts is that such serv ice is insufficient ; Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 15 Sup. Ct. 559, 39 L. Ed. 517; Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Co. v. R. Co., 53 Fed. 850. See FOREIGN CORPORATION. But it was held by the circuit court that when the manager of a corporation goes into another state on business of the corporation, service of summons against the corporation in a suit relating to that business may be made on him there; Houston v. Filer & Stowell Co., 85 Fed. 757.
"It is useful in all cases to consult the careful opinion in U. S. v. Tel. Co., 29 Fed. 17, and to re-state the three conditions which it is there said must concur or co-exist in or der to give the federal courts jurisdiction in personam over a corporation created in an other state: (1) It must appear as a matter of fact that the corporation is carding on its business in the state where it is served with process ; (2) that such business is transacted or managed by some agent or officer appoint ed by and representing the corporation in such state ; and (3) the existence of some local law making such corporation, or foreign corporations generally, amenable to suit there, as a condition, express or implied, of doing business in the state." Union Associated Press v. Printing Co., 83 Fed. 823.
Where one was brought into a state by ex tradition proceedings, and had given, bail for his appearance, and later returned for trial, and after acquittal was served with civil process, it was held that he was privileged from such service; Murray v. Wilcox, 122 Ia. 188, 97 N. W. 1087, 64 L. R. A. 534, 101 Am. St. Rep. 263 ; contra, Clark v. McFarland, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 636 ; Com. v. Daniel, 4 Clark (Pa.) 49. One going into another state as a witness or as a party defendant in a suit therein, either nominally or as a defendant in interest, is exempt from process in such state, while necessarily attending in respect to such trial ; Skinner & Mounce Co. v. Waite, 155 Fed. 828.