( Holiness Church v. Metropolitan Church Assn., 12 Cal.App. 445, 448 [ 107 P. 633]; Hunstock v. Estate Development Corp., 22 Cal.2d 205 [ 138 P.2d 1, 148 A.L.R. 968].) In considering the appropriate method of serving a corporation, the court in the Hunstock case reasoned that "delivery" of process connotes manual tradition to the person to be served and that "delivery" is identical with "the common law rule of personal delivery" as provided for in Code of Civil Procedure, section 411 Although the strict requirements of manual tradition of the papers are relaxed when the defendant attempts to flee the approaching process server (see In re Ball, 2 Cal.App.2d 578 [ 38 P.2d 411], where the process was thrown at the retreating defendant; Trujillo v. Trujillo, 71 Cal.App.2d 257, 259-260 [ 162 P.2d 640], where the papers were placed in the windshield wiper of defendant's retreating automobile), no such problem was presented in the instant case. In fact, appellant seems to have been perfectly amenable to proper service.

"Where a deputy sheriff, in undertaking to serve a petition, process, and restraining order upon a defendant named therein, went to the defendant, and while about three feet from him told the defendant that he had a paper for him, and the defendant said, `You ain't got no paper for me, I haven't done anything,' and the officer then handed him the paper and told him, `Well, here it is anyhow,' and the defendant refused to take it, whereupon the officer stuck it at him, and the defendant still refusing it, the officer `dropped it at his feet' — held, that such facts, if duly proved, would show valid personal service upon such defendant. In re Ball, 2 Cal.App.2d 578 ( 38 P.2d 411); 50 C. J. 485, § 84; 16 L.R.A. 200, 201." Carroll v. Celanese Corp. of America, 205 Ga. 493 (2) ( 54 S.E.2d 221). A defendant in an action praying for a temporary and permanent injunction, who is personally served with the petition, order and process, and who stands by and permits a permanent injunction to be issued against her, in the absence of a traverse of the entry and return of service, cannot, in a contempt proceeding charging her with disobeying the injunctive decree, plead innocence on the ground that she never had any actual knowledge of the injunction proceeding.

Where a deputy sheriff, in undertaking to serve a petition, process, and restraining order upon a defendant named therein, went to the defendant, and while about three feet from him told the defendant that he had a paper for him, and the defendant said, "You ain't got no paper for me, I haven't done anything," and the officer then handed him the paper and told him, "Well, here it is anyhow," and the defendant refused to take it, whereupon the officer stuck it at him, and the defendant still refusing it, the officer "dropped it at his feet" — held, that such facts, if duly proved, would show valid personal service upon such defendant. In re Ball 2 Cal.App.2d 578 ( 38 P.2d 411); 50 C. J. 485, § 84; 16 L.R.A. 200, 201. ( a) From statements of counsel made in open court with respect to service, considered in connection with a stipulation as to what a deputy sheriff if present in court (he being absent on account of sickness) would testify as to service on the plaintiff in error Dodd, and with the testimony of Dodd himself on the issue, the judge was authorized to find that this plaintiff in error, as a party to the original injunction suit, was duly served in person with the suit and the injunctive order.

(4) It is established that a defendant will not be permitted to defeat service by rendering physical service impossible. In In re Ball (1934) 2 Cal.App.2d 578 [ 38 P.2d 411], it was held that effective service was made when the process server informed the defendant that he had "`another one of those things for you,'" and when the defendant moved away, threw the summons and complaint so that it fell a few feet away from the defendant. "We take it that when men are within easy speaking distance of each other and facts occur that would convince a reasonable man that personal service of a legal document is being attempted, service cannot be avoided by denying service and moving away without consenting to take the document in hand."

(See, e.g., In re Ball (1934) 2 Cal.App.2d 578, 579 [ 38 P.2d 411].) Attempted delivery to a recalcitrant defendant, in his presence, is permitted.

A person may not deny personal service on the grounds of lack of delivery where the delivery was deliberately prevented by the action of the person to be served. ( In re Ball (1934) 2 Cal.App.2d 578 [ 38 P.2d 411]; Crescendo Corp. v. Shelted, Inc. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 209 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 776].) The usual rule is that service by mail is effective upon depositing in the mail.

The individual upon whom the process server attempts to make personal service by manual delivery may not be heard to claim that service was improper because he refused to accept service. ( In re Ball, 2 Cal.App.2d 578 [ 38 P.2d 411].) The evidence is sufficient to support the court's necessarily implied finding that the process server attempted to deliver the summons and complaint to Greenhouse personally but was prevented from so doing by Greenhouse himself.

is similarly flexible when a defendant attempts to avoid personal service. See e.g., Khourie, Crew Jaeger v. Sabek, 220 Cal. App.3d 1009, 269 Cal.Rptr. 687, 689 (1990) ("It is established that a defendant will not be permitted to defeat service by rendering physical service impossible."); Trujillo v. Trujillo, 71 Cal.App.2d 257, 162 P.2d 640, 641-42 (1945) (service was sufficient when server clearly communicated the nature of the documents, at which point defendant jumped in his car, drove away and caused the documents to be dislodged from his windshield wiper); In re Ball, 2 Cal.App.2d 578, 38 P.2d 411, 412 (1934) ("We take it that when men are within easy speaking distance of each other and facts occur that would convince a reasonable man that personal service of a legal document is being attempted, service cannot be avoided by denying service and moving away without consenting to take the document in hand."). The key question is whether a party receives sufficient notice of the complaint and action against them.

On this point, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.10 et seq. is similarly flexible when a defendant attempts to avoid personal service. See e.g., Khourie, Crew Jaeger v. Sabek, 269 Cal. Rptr. 687, 689 (1990) ("It is established that a defendant will not be permitted to defeat service by rendering physical service impossible."); Trujillo v. Trujillo, 162 P.2d 640, 641-42 (Cal.Ct.App. 1945) (service was sufficient when server clearly communicated the nature of the documents, at which point defendant jumped in his car, drove away and caused the documents to be dislodged from his windshield wiper); In re Ball, 38 P.2d 411, 412 (Cal.Ct.App. 1934) ("We take it that when men are within easy speaking distance of each other and facts occur that would convince a reasonable man that personal service of a legal document is being attempted, service cannot be avoided by denying service and moving away without consenting to take the document in hand."). The key question is whether a party receives sufficient notice of the complaint and action against them.

In December of the same year, the District Court of Appeal of that state refused for the second time, to release him on habeas corpus. In re Ball, 2 Cal.App. (2d) 578, 38 P.2d 411.         The proceedings which resulted in the order we are asked to adjudge void were based upon complaints charging the complainant herein, also Ball and his associates, with conducting common carrier operations between Los Angeles and San Joaquin valley points, being the same territory wherein, according to the prior decisions of the commission, he had been carrying on similar activities since 1930.