· 1
40 _ FEDERAL amromrmn.
geids of such sale are not suiiicient to satisfy the decree. Comp. 1887 ,
17. ·
The notice in the summons was properly given under the second sub-
division of section 53; and a copy of the complaint having been served
at the same time, the defendant was fully informed of the nature of the ·
decree that might be taken against him in case he tailed to answer. ‘
The last objection to the validity of the service will be considered first.
It does not appear that a copy of the summons was delivered " to some
— person of the family * * * at the dwelling-house or usual place of
v abode" of the defendant. What does appear is this: A copy of the
summons was "left" with "a member of the family over the age of 14
H years, at his [the defendants] usual place of abode in said [Linn] county."
A suit to enforce the lien of a mortgage is a local one, and can only be
brought in the county where the land lies. Comp. 1887, § 387. But
the defendant may be served with the summons in any county of the
state in which he may be found. Id. §§ 52, 54.
There is no presumption that Grigsby was a resident of Linn county
because the suit to enforce alien on real property belonging to him therein
» was brought there. It could not have been brought elsewhere. For
aught that appears he may have resided in any other county in the state.
And if "found" anywhere therein, whether commorant or itinerant, he
could have been served by delivering to him personally, a copy of the
summons. But if not so ".found," then he could only be served by the
delivery of a copy of the summons "to a person of the family"-the
family of which he constituted a part, whether as head or meinber-at
' his dwelling-house or usual place of `abode."
It is self-evid_ent that a defendant can have but one unqualified "usual
place of abode" in the state at the same time. If he has other places of
abode therein, as he may have, they are his unusual places of abode.
A defendan_t may be served personally anywhere in the state that he may
be "found," but, if served constructively, by the mere delivery of a copy
of the summons for him to the person designated by the statute, it must
be done at his "usual place of abode" in the state, in whatever county
that may be." And if he has no such place of abode, and cannot be
found, he must be served by publication. His usual place of abode in
a particular county is not necessarily his usual place of abode in the state.
’ A person may reside eleven months in the year in Multnomah county,
and one month, in the year near the beach: in Ulatsop county. He may
have a faxed and well—known residence in each county. But can there
be any question in which county his usual place of abode is, within the
meaning of the statute regulating the service of a summons? Certainly
not. It is in Multnomah county. Now, suppose a suit was commenced
against this person in Clatsop county, to divest him of some interest in
real property therein; the sheriff might leave a copy of the summons at
his residence in Clatsop county with his housekeeper, or with "some per- ,
son of the family" with whom he always resides when in the county,
and then truly return that, the defendant not being found, he had served
the summons by leaving a copy thereof with such person ‘_‘at his usual