Ch. R. 70; McVoy v. Baumann,93 N.J. Eq. 360; 117 Atl. Rep. 717; affirmed, 93 N.J. Eq. 638;117 Atl. Rep. 725. The cases disclose that the efficiency of substituted service has been variously raised in this court by motion to strike the bill where the non-resident has been the only defendant, by plea, by motion to quash the service, and by order to show cause why the order of publication should not be vacated. The following citations are pertinent to the subject, and I donate them to those who are inquisitive: Albert v. ClarendonLand Investment and Agency Co., 53 N.J. Eq. 623; 23 Atl. Rep. 8;Wilson v. American Palace Car Co., 65 N.J. Eq. 730;55 Atl. Rep. 997; Andrews v. Guayaquil and Q.R. Co., 69 N.J. Eq. 211;60 Atl. Rep. 568; affirmed, 71 N.J. Eq. 768; 71 Atl. Rep. 1133;Groel v. United Electric Co., 69 N.J. Eq. 397;60 Atl. Rep. 822; Lanning v. Twining, 71 N.J. Eq. 573; 64 Atl. Rep. 466;Amparo Mining Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 74 N.J. Eq. 197;71 Atl. Rep. 605; affirmed, 75 N.J. Eq. 555; 73 Atl. Rep. 249;Ewald v. Ortynsky, 77 N.J. Eq. 76; 75 Atl. Rep. 577; affirmed,78 N.J. Eq. 527; 79 Atl. Rep. 270; McBride v. Garland, 89 N.J. Eq. 314;104 Atl. Rep. 435; Brimberg v. Hartenfeld Bag Co.,89 N.J. Eq. 425; 105 Atl. Rep. 68; Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Andrus, 91 N.J. Eq. 225; 109 Atl. Rep. 766; affirmed, 92 N.J. Eq. 238;112 Atl. Rep. 307; Apgar v. Altoona Glass Co., 92 N.J. Eq. 352;113 Atl. Rep. 593; McVoy v. Baumann, supra; In reSwetland, 105 N.J. Eq. 603; 148 Atl. Rep. 744; affirmed, 107 N.J. Eq. 504;153 Atl. Rep. 907; Cameron v. Penn Mutual LifeInsurance Co., 111 N.J. Eq. 24; 161 Atl. Rep. 55; Elgart v. Mintz, 123 N.J. Eq. 404; 197 Atl. Rep. 747; 124 N.J. Eq. 133;200 Atl. Rep. 550; 124 N.J. Eq. 136; 200 Atl. Rep. 488;Englander v. Jacoby, 132 N.J. Eq. 336; 28 Atl. Rep. 2d 292. I need venture no further in the province of the present motion than to say
A decree of interpleader against Getz would have been a nullity. Redzina v. ProvidentInstitution for Savings, 96 N.J. Eq. 346; Lanning v. Twining,71 N.J. Eq. 573; McBride v. Garland, 89 N.J. Eq. 314; Hills v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 39 N.J.L.J. 132; Gleason v. NorthWestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., 97 N.J. Eq. 35; Hinton v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 126 N.C. 18; 35 S.E. Rep. 182;Dexter v. Lichliter, 24 D.C. App. 222; Gary v. N.W. MasonicAid Association, 87 Iowa 25; 50 N.W. Rep. 27. The bill will be dismissed.
A decree of interpleader against Getz would have been a nullity. Redzina v. Provident Institution for Savings, 96 N. J. Eq. 346, 125 A. 133; Lanning v. Twining, 71 N. J. Eq. 573, 64 A. 466; McBride v. Garland, 89 N. J. Eq. 314, 104 A. 435; Hills v. Ætna Life Ins. Co., 39 N. J. Law J. 132; Gleason v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 203 N. Y. 507, 97 N. E. 35; Hinton v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 126 N. C. 18, 35 S. E. 182, 78 Am. St. Rep. 636; Dexter v. Lichliter, 24 App. D.C. 222; Gary v. Northwestern Masonic Aid Ass'n (Iowa) 50 N. W. 27. The bill will be dismissed.