MULDOON V. MULDOON.

derogation of the common law; but the common law as that'term is usually understood is no part of the law of the Canal Zone and the statute in question is not, therefore, in derogation of the common law.It is, however, a rule of universal application in all the courts of Continental United States, that statutes providing for substituted service in divorce, and other actions upon absent defendants must be strictly and literally followed or the court does not acquire jurisdiction to made a decree which will bind the defendant in the action thus served with process constructively. Such rule should be followed by this court in such cases.
The applicable part of the divorce law is as follows:
Section 15. PROCESS. SERVICE. NOTICE BY PUBLICATION. (a) The clerk of the district court shall issue a summons for the defendant to appear and answer, which summons shall be personally served on the defendant, if the defendant is found on the Canal Zone, by delivering a Vue copy thereof to the defendant in person.
(b) When any petitioner shall file in the office of the clerk of the district court an affidavit showing:
(1) That the husband and wife have their legal domicile in the Canal Zone and that the defendant has gone out of the Canal Zone and willfully refuses to return, so that process can not be personally served upon him or her;
(2) When such affidavit states the present place of residence of the defendant, if known, the clerk shall cause publication to be made in some newspaper
published in the Canal Zone, and if there is no newspaper published in the Canal Zone then in the' nearest reliable newspaper with a general circulation published in the Republic of Panama and printed in English or having an English section or edition, containing notice of the pendency of such suit, the names of the parties thereto, the time and place of the return of the summons in the case; and he shall also, within 10 days after the first publication of such notice, send a copy thereof by mail addressed to the defendant at the last known place of residence stated in the affidavit. The certificate of the clerk that he has sent such notice shall be evid6nce thereof.
It was suggested in the oral argument upon this motion that if the affidavit of the plaintiff for procuring publication of the summons in this action was defective it might be aided by the allegations of the plaintiff's petition treated as an affidavit. This, however, can not be done in the instant case for two reasons, viz.: (First) The petition is not verified and cannot therefore be treated as an affidavit; (Second) 'there are no allegations in the petition which in any manner, aid the affidavit.
Examining the affidavit of the plaintiff herein quoted for the purpose of determining whether it complies with that portion of the divorce law herein quoted, the court is, of the opinion that the affidavit is deficient in two important jurisdictional particulars: (First) There is no statement in the affidavit, as required by subsection (b) of section 15 above quoted, "that the husband and wife have their legal domicile in the Canal Zone." The statement is that "she (the plaintiff) is a