jurisdiction to act.” Nolan v. Nolan, 490 N.W.2d 517, 520 (S.D.1992). “Thus, due and legal service of process is necessary to give a court jurisdiction over a defendant.” Id. Without jurisdiction to act, the orders and judgment of the court are void ab initio. Id. at 521. “In order for the trial court to have jurisdiction in these contempt proceedings, personal service upon [defendant] under the provisions of SDCL 15-6-4 was mandatory. Because this service is absent, jurisdiction is totally lacking.” Matter of Gillespi, 397 N.W.2d 476, 477 (S.D.1986). [¶ 24.] “[T]he failure to issue, file, or serve a summons, as in this case, deprives the court of jurisdiction.” Ripple v. Wold, 1997 SD 135, ¶15, 572 N.W.2d 439, 443; See also Lekanidis v. Bendetti, 2000 SD 86, ¶ 33, 613 N.W.2d 542, 549 (<HOLDING>). “One may research over 100 years of decisions
holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service holding that if service done by certified mail action commenced upon receipt of summons and complaint recognizing that it is well settled law that an action is commenced by the service of a summons and without valid service of process the trial court has no jurisdiction to act holding that a defendants actual knowledge that an action is pending or that service has been attempted is not the equivalent of service of summons and will not relieve the plaintiff of its burden or vest the court with jurisdiction