## Facts

- Louis Leigh sued Phillip Lynton and Jessie Lynton under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, alleging an unlawful rent-and-furniture overcharge arrangement connected to a furnished sublease.
- Phillip Lynton was a British citizen who had been in the United States, but at the time of the attempted service he was residing in London.
- Jessie Lynton (Phillip’s wife and a co-defendant) lived for a time at the Hotel Wyndham in New York.
- A Deputy U.S. Marshal attempted to serve Phillip by delivering the summons and complaint to Jessie at the Hotel Wyndham, treating the hotel as Phillip’s “dwelling house or usual place of abode” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1).
- Phillip appeared specially and moved to dismiss for lack of proper service or, alternatively, to quash service.

## Issues

1. Whether leaving process with a defendant’s wife at her temporary hotel residence constitutes valid service on the defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1) as service at the defendant’s “dwelling house or usual place of abode.”

## Decision

- The court granted Phillip Lynton’s motion to quash service.
- The court held that the Hotel Wyndham was not Phillip’s “dwelling house or usual place of abode” within the meaning of Rule 4(d)(1) because he was living in London and did not reside at the hotel.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 4(d)(1), substituted service by leaving process with a person of suitable age and discretion is valid only if the papers are left at the defendant’s own dwelling house or usual place of abode and with a person then residing there.
- A spouse’s separate, temporary residence does not become the defendant’s “usual place of abode” absent a sufficient residential connection showing the defendant actually resides there or keeps it as a home.
- Prior decisions sustaining substituted service at a family residence are distinguishable when the location served is the defendant’s home (or a home he maintains and to which he intends to return), even if the defendant is temporarily absent.

## Conclusion

Because Phillip Lynton was residing in London and did not live at or maintain the Hotel Wyndham as his dwelling or usual place of abode, leaving the summons and complaint with his wife at that hotel did not satisfy Rule 4(d)(1), and the attempted service was quashed.


Leigh v. Lynton, 9 F.R.D. 28 (E.D.N.Y. 1949)