It appears oil the face of the complaint that the Indiana judgment, here sued upon, is void as against W. J. Barker for want of proper service. It is not alleged, as required by the Indiana law, that W. J. Barker “refused to accept or claim such registered mail” containing notice of service and copy of process. The allegation is, that he “failed to claim the same.” To refuse to accept or claim registered mail is not the same as to fail to claim it. The one imports notice, while the other does not. The difference is material.
It is a requirement of the Indiana law that notice of service and copy of process shall be sent “to the defendant,” and his return receipt appended to the original process, or in ease the defendant “refuses to accept or claim” the notice, service may be completed by the return of the registered mail appended to the original process and attested by proper affidavit. It is not provided that service may be completed where the defendant has merely “failed to claim” the registered mail. The allegation of failure to claim the registered mail, therefore, falls short of the requirement of the statute. Syracuse Trust Co. v. Keller, 165 Atl. (Del.), 327. It is universally held that unless one named as a defendant has been brought into court in some way sanctioned by law, or makes a voluntary appearance in person or by attorney, a judgment rendered against him is void for want of jurisdiction. Groce v. Groce, 214 N. C., 398, 199 S. E., 388; Denton v. Vassiliades, 212 N. C., 513, 193 S. E., 737; Downing v. White, 211 N. C., 40, 188 S. E., 815.
Nor is the defect cured by the recital in the affidavit of counsel for plaintiff that the registered mail was “returned unclaimed” by the Post Office Department. True this is the language of the statute, but such return is to be preceded by the refusal of the defendant to accept or claim the registered mail..
The allegations of the complaint clearly show that the Indiana court acquired no jurisdiction over the defendant, W. J. Barker. Lowman v. Ballard, 168 N. C., 16, 84 S. E., 21. It is the accepted principle here and elsewhere that a judgment in personam without voluntary appearance or valid service of process within the jurisdiction is void. Graves v. Reidsville, 182 N. C., 330, 109 S. E., 29; Harrell v. Welstead, 206 N. C., 817, 175 S. E., 283; Stevens v. Cecil, 214 N. C., 217, 199 S. E., 161; Adams v. Cleve, 218 N. C., 302, 10 S. E. (2d), 911; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S., 714. “Jurisdiction of the party, obtained by the court in some way allowed by law, is essential to enable the court to give a valid judgment against him” — Merrimon, J., in Stancill v. Gay, 92 N. C., 462.
A void judgment may be treated as a nullity, disregarded, vacated on motion, attacked directly or collaterally. Dunn v. Wilson, 210 N. C., *468493, 187 S. E., 802; Oliver v. Hood, 209 N. C., 291, 183 S. E., 657; Abernethy v. Burns, 210 N. C., 636, 188 S. E., 97. It affords no basis for a recovery.
The demurrers were properly sustained.
Affirmed.