dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case in thcir holding that service upon LaPalme was not adequate. The majority cites a commentary which was made at the time of the adoption of Ind.Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4.1 and states that the Court at the time of adoption rejected Subsection 4, which is referred to in the commentary.
The rejected portion undertook to describe persons who would be acceptable to receive service. There was no attempt to strike out or qualify TR. 4.1(A)(1), which reads as follows:
"[SJending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail or other public means by which a written acknowledgment of receipt may be requested and obtained to his residence, place of business or employment with return receipt requested and returned showing receipt of the letter;"
There is no question that under the rule had a letter comporting with the rule been sent to LaPalme's place of business, it would have been adequate. In this instance, the delivery to the place of business in fact was superior to a delivery by mail. *1107It was delivered by a process server whose return was made to the trial court concerning such delivery. I believe such service was in substantial compliance with the rule.
The only issue which could favor La-Palme was not dealt with by the majority, that is, LaPalme's inadequate affidavit in which he stated at the time of the service he no longer worked for Danaca Transport Ltee. However, because of its inadequacy, the affidavit was not accepted by the trial court. In addition, there is actually no claim by LaPalme that he had no knowledge of the pending lawsuit.
I would deny transfer in this case.
SHEPARD, C.J., concurs.