swim v. Mamas. 41
place of abode in Clatsop county;" and do this, notwithstanding he and
the plaintiff might both well know that the defendant had not been in
the county for nearly 11 months, and was then, and had been for years,
a permanent resident of Multnomah county, in which was his usual place I
of abode in the state. Y
In Brown v. Langlois, 70 Mo. 226, it was held under a similar statute
that service of a summons by leaving a copy "at the usual place of abode"
of the deiendant, "when in the city of Cape Girardeau," was invalid;
and that a judgment by default thereon was a nullity. `
In Allen v. Wlavzufacturing Co., 72 Mo. 326, service of process by leaving
the same " at the Hardin House, the usual place of abode of the" defendant,
"‘ prior to the time he left the state," was held bad, because it did not
show that the writ was left at a place which was the abode of the defend-
ant at the time of service. I
In Bank v. Suman,7-9 Mo. 527, a. service by leaving process at the
" last usual place of abode" of the defendant was held invalid, because,
non constant, that his "last" place of abode was his present one, and the re- ‘
turn could have been true, and the defendant "reside in another county
or jurisdiction." _ j
In Dawson v. Bank, 3 Ark. 505, and Parks v. Weems, 9 Ark. 439, it
was held that service of a summons at the residence of the defendant by
delivering a copy to a person present there, whom it did not appear from
the return was "a member of the family," is bad, and will not support a ·
judgment by default.. “
In Sanborn v. Stickney, 69 Me. 343, it was held that a return on a writ _
that it was served on the defendant by leaving a copy of the summons
for him "at his last and usual place of abode in Kennebec county " did
not show that the summons was left at the defendant’s"place of last and
usual abode," as by statute required. Upon this service there was a
judgment by default, and afterwards on this judgment there was an ac-
tion brought in the same state, and the invalidity of the service was re-
lied on as a defense. The court said: A
" The point taken in the defense is that • his last and usual place of abode
in Kennebec county ’ would not be his * place of last and usual abode’ in the ,
state. We concurin that interpretation of the otiicer’s return. * * * All
the otlicer certified may be true and no service be made. The otiicer would
not be liable for making a false return. But he made an indefinite. equivo-
cal, and insutncient return. It must be certain that a defendant has been
legally notified before judgment can properly go against him. "
’ In Ames v. Winsor, 19 Pick. 247, the return was to the effect that the
summons had been left for the defendant " at his last and usual place of
abode " known to the officer serving it, in the city of Boston. The state
ute required the summons to be delivered to the party, or left at his
"dwelling-house or place of last and usual abode." It was held that the
servicewas insufficient. _
In Settlemwr v. Sullivan, 97 U. S. 444, it was held that the service of
a summons under a similar statute (Or. St. 1855, p. 86, § 29) by deliv-
ering a copy thereof to the wife of the defendant at the usual place of