Lexplug logoLexplug

Tickle v. Barton

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
95 S.E.2d 427 (1956)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Personal service of process is void if it is obtained by trickery, fraud, or deceit used to induce a non-resident defendant to enter the court's jurisdiction for the purpose of being served.


Facts:

  • Richard Tickle, an infant, was injured in McDowell County, West Virginia, by a motor vehicle owned by Raymond Barton, a resident of Virginia, and operated by Lawrence Coleman.
  • The incident occurred on private property, not a public highway.
  • An attorney for Tickle telephoned Barton at his home in Virginia.
  • The attorney concealed his identity and, falsely claiming to represent the sponsors of a high school football banquet, invited Barton to the event in McDowell County.
  • Barton's son had been a member of the school's football team, making the invitation seem plausible.
  • Believing the invitation was genuine, Barton accepted and traveled from Virginia to McDowell County for the sole purpose of attending the banquet.
  • Upon arriving at the school where the banquet was held, a deputy sheriff served Barton with an alias process (a second summons) for Tickle's lawsuit.
  • Barton would not have entered McDowell County, and thus could not have been served there, but for the attorney's deceptive invitation.

Procedural Posture:

  • Richard Tickle sued Raymond Barton and Lawrence Coleman in the Circuit Court of McDowell County, West Virginia, which is a trial court.
  • Initial service of process was made on Barton, a Virginia resident, through the West Virginia State Auditor under a statute governing accidents on public highways.
  • Barton filed a plea in abatement (a motion seeking to end the suit for a specific reason), arguing the service was invalid because the accident occurred on private property.
  • While the initial plea was pending, Tickle's attorney had an alias process issued for personal service.
  • After being served in person, Barton filed an amended plea in abatement, challenging the new service on the grounds it was procured by fraud and deceit.
  • Tickle filed a demurrer, arguing that even if Barton's allegations of trickery were true, they were legally insufficient to invalidate the service.
  • The trial court overruled Tickle's demurrer, finding that Barton's plea was legally sufficient.
  • The trial court then certified the question of its ruling on the demurrer to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the state's highest court.

Locked

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 personal service of process on a non-resident defendant confer valid personal jurisdiction on the court if the defendant's presence within the jurisdiction was procured by deceitful inducement by the plaintiff's attorney?


Opinions:

Majority - Haymond, Judge

No. Personal service of process does not confer valid jurisdiction when the defendant's presence within the jurisdiction was procured by trickery, fraud, or artifice for which the plaintiff is responsible. The court adopts the widely recognized principle that courts will not exercise jurisdiction in favor of a plaintiff who has obtained service through unlawful means. When a non-resident is inveigled or enticed into a jurisdiction by any false representation or deceitful contrivance for the purpose of service, such service is invalid. The actions of the plaintiff's attorney are imputed to the plaintiff, and the attorney's concealment of his identity and purpose to trick Barton into entering McDowell County constitutes the type of deceit that vitiates the service of process. The integrity of the judicial process cannot be upheld if it relies on a foundation of fraud.


Dissenting - Given, Judge

Yes. While agreeing with the legal rule against fraudulent inducement, the service of process should be considered valid because the facts alleged do not rise to the level of fraud. The attorney made no false or untrue statements; the banquet was a real event that Barton was invited to attend. The only alleged wrongdoing was the attorney's failure to disclose his identity. This act of non-disclosure, without any affirmative misrepresentation, does not meet the high standard required to prove fraud, which is never presumed. The attorney was merely taking advantage of a lawful opportunity to perform his duty to his client, and this conduct should not invalidate the otherwise proper service of process.



Analysis:

This case formally establishes the rule in West Virginia that jurisdiction cannot be founded upon service of process that was procured through fraud or trickery. By aligning with the majority of American jurisdictions, the court prioritizes the integrity of the judicial process over a plaintiff's ability to secure jurisdiction by any means necessary. The decision sets a clear ethical boundary for legal practitioners, affirming that deceitful tactics to lure a defendant into a jurisdiction are impermissible. This precedent reinforces the principle that courts will not reward or validate actions that undermine the fairness and legitimacy of legal proceedings.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Tickle v. Barton (1956)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"