King v. Fisher

4 Citing cases

  1. Whetsel v. Gosnell

    54 Del. 519 (Del. 1962)   Cited 8 times

    The Court thus laid great stress in the importance of an affidavit to controvert a presumption of an animus revertendi. The later Delaware case of King v. Fisher, 10 Terry 374, 117 A.2d 76 (1955), decided in the Superior Court, involved a married naval officer whose parents resided in Claymont, Delaware. Defendant was involved in an automobile accident and an attempt was made to serve him at the home of his parents in Claymont. At the time of said service defendant was stationed at Newport News, Virginia, and was living with his wife in a rented apartment in Portsmouth, Virginia. Plaintiff argued that Claymont was still the defendant's usual place of abode because many of his personal effects were stored there, and it was listed on his military records as his permanent address.

  2. Saienni v. Oveide

    355 A.2d 707 (Del. Super. Ct. 1976)   Cited 3 times
    Requiring the physical presence of defendant in the home at the time of service, with the exception of a short absence or vacation

    In Delaware, a person's "usual place of abode" is not the equivalent of his "domicile". King v. Fisher, Del.Super., 10 Terry 374, 117 A.2d 76 (1955). In Whetsel v. Gosnell, Del.Supr.

  3. Cohen v. Brandywine Raceway Association

    238 A.2d 320 (Del. Super. Ct. 1968)   Cited 78 times
    Holding there was no excusable neglect when an office manger misplaced and forgot papers for several weeks which he admits he knew were legal in nature and were important

    The plaintiffs on the other hand contend that there was effective service on Stevens, Inc., and also that the conduct of various persons on behalf of Stevens did not constitute excusable neglect. The right to challenge the sufficiency of service of process as being irregular or defective is well settled in Delaware Allder v. Hudson, 9 Terry 489, 106 A.2d 759, 46 A.L.R.2d 1237 (1954); King v. Fisher, 10 Terry 374, 117 A.2d 76 (1955). The plaintiffs rely on the case of Cohen v. Krigstein, 10 Terry 256, 114 A.2d 225 (1955) for the proposition that a sheriff's return, complete and regular on its face, is conclusive upon the parties and, in the absence of fraud, it cannot be set aside on evidence dehors the record, even though the return is attacked before entry of judgment.

  4. Bros v. Wilkins

    134 A.2d 636 (Del. Super. Ct. 1957)   Cited 6 times

    The right to question the sufficiency of service of process by bringing an irregular or defective service to the attention of the Court in a proper manner is settled in this jurisdiction. See Woolley on Delaware Practice, ยงยง 186, 212, 213; Civil Rule 12(b) (5); Allder v. Hudson, 9 Terry 489, 106 A.2d 769, 46 A.L.R. 2d 1237; King v. Fisher, 10 Terry 374, 117 A.2d 76. In the latter cases, the Court was called upon to test the soundness of conclusions of law and fact contained in the sheriff's return.