Bratton v. Trojan Boat Co.
172 N.W.2d 457, 19 Mich. App. 236 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Placing a summons and complaint in the hands of a local sheriff for immediate service on an out-of-state defendant constitutes a good faith effort that tolls the statute of limitations for up to 90 days, even if that specific sheriff cannot personally serve the foreign corporation within the state.
Facts:
- On or about July 22, 1962, several plaintiffs were injured when a boat exploded in Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
- The boat was manufactured by Trojan Boat Company, a Pennsylvania-based corporation.
- Trojan Boat Company sold the boat to a third person, who is not a party to this suit.
- At the time of the incident and lawsuit, Trojan Boat Company was not registered in Michigan and did not have a registered agent for service of process in the state.
- Trojan Boat Company sold approximately 7.9% of its total products in Michigan and had a regional salesman residing in Michigan, as well as three distributors in the state.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 20, 1965, plaintiffs filed suit against Trojan Boat Company in Wayne County Circuit Court, a state trial court.
- On the same day, plaintiffs delivered the summons and complaint to the Wayne County sheriff for service.
- On August 13, 1965, Trojan Boat Company filed a motion to quash service, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs then arranged for personal service on Trojan Boat Company's vice president in Pennsylvania on August 24, 1965.
- On September 2, 1965, Trojan Boat Company filed an amended motion to quash and for accelerated judgment, arguing the three-year statute of limitations had expired.
- The trial court judge granted the accelerated judgment in favor of Trojan Boat Company as to the adult plaintiffs, ruling that the statute of limitations had run before effective service was obtained.
- The adult plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed this decision to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does delivering a summons and complaint to a local sheriff for immediate service on a foreign corporation, which cannot be personally served by that sheriff within the state, toll the statute of limitations under a statute that requires placing the documents 'in good faith' in the hands of an officer for immediate service?
Opinions:
Majority - Holbrook, P. J.
Yes. Delivering the summons and complaint to the sheriff of the proper county for immediate service on an out-of-state corporation tolls the statute of limitations because it satisfies the statutory requirement of placing the documents 'in good faith' in the hands of an officer for immediate service. The applicable tolling statute, MCLA § 600.5856(3), pauses the statute of limitations for up to 90 days when a complaint is filed and copies are placed in good faith with an officer for immediate service. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs acted in good faith by filing the suit in the proper venue (Wayne County, where the accident occurred) and delivering the process to the sheriff of that county two days before the statute of limitations was set to expire. The fact that the Wayne County sheriff could not personally travel to Pennsylvania to serve the defendant does not negate the plaintiffs' good faith effort. Citing Hammel v. Bettison, the court affirmed that the inability of a local sheriff to personally serve a non-resident defendant does not prevent the tolling statute from operating.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'good faith' requirement within Michigan's tolling statute, particularly in cases involving out-of-state defendants. It establishes that the focus is on the plaintiff's diligent initiation of the service process with the proper local authority, rather than on the officer's logistical ability to complete service personally. This precedent protects plaintiffs' access to courts when suing non-resident entities, preventing a defendant's lack of a physical presence in the state from being used to defeat a timely-filed claim. The ruling prioritizes the purpose of the tolling statute—to allow diligent plaintiffs to preserve their cause of action—over a rigid, geographical interpretation of a sheriff's service capabilities.
Unlock the full brief for Bratton v. Trojan Boat Co.