Barrett v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

34 N.E. 289, 138 N.Y. 491, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 86, 93 Sickels 491, 1893 N.Y. LEXIS 863
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 13, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 34 N.E. 289 (Barrett v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barrett v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 34 N.E. 289, 138 N.Y. 491, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 86, 93 Sickels 491, 1893 N.Y. LEXIS 863 (N.Y. 1893).

Opinion

*493 Gray, J.

The defendant seeks to set aside the service of the summons in this action, for having been made upon its general superintendent. It is a domestic corporation, and, under section 431 of the Code, such a service, if not made upon the president, secretary, cashier, treasurer or a director, might be made upon its managing agent. It appeared from the affidavits, read on behalf of the defendant company, that the person served was the general superintendent of thé work of operating the lines of the company. It was said of him that he was given that title “ to distinguish him from superintendents of divisions of its lines, and from superintendents of other departments of business.” There was a sufficiently broad agency, or delegation of power,to constitute him a managing agent of the company. The design of the statute was to secure notice of the commencement of a suit to the corporation, and it is very apparent, from the description in the statute of the persons upon whom service might be made, that the legislature intended to facilitate such service, and only required that the person to be served should sustain such responsible and representative relations to the corporation, as would be comprehended in the term “ managing agent.” This language would exclude persons holding such subordinate, or clerical positions as imposed no responsibility upon them; but,plainly,would include a person holding so responsible and representative an office as did the general superintendent of this company.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Katims v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
9 Misc. 3d 503 (Suffolk County District Court, 2005)
Fashion Page, Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance
406 N.E.2d 747 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Regan v. Tally Ho Trucking Co.
103 Misc. 2d 269 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1980)
Jacobs v. Zurich Insurance
53 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Isaf v. Pennsylvania Railroad
32 A.D.2d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1969)
Klishewich v. Mediterranean Agencies, Inc.
42 F.R.D. 624 (E.D. New York, 1966)
Callan v. Lillybelle, Ltd.
20 A.D.2d 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Fischer v. Seamen's Church Institute
275 A.D.2d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)
Cunningham v. Mellin's Food Co.
121 Misc. 353 (New York Supreme Court, 1923)
Hotel Woodward Co. v. Ford Motor Co.
258 F. 322 (Second Circuit, 1919)
Loeb v. Star & Herald Co.
187 A.D. 175 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Miller v. W. K. Jahn Co.
104 Misc. 370 (New York Supreme Court, 1918)
Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.
115 N.E. 915 (New York Court of Appeals, 1917)
Jackson v. Schuylkill Silk Mills
92 Misc. 442 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Russell v. Washington Life Insurance
62 Misc. 403 (New York Supreme Court, 1909)
Behan v. Phelps
27 Misc. 718 (New York County Courts, 1899)
Balmford v. Grand Lodge of the Ancient Order of United Workmen
16 Misc. 4 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Faltiska v. New York, L. E. & W. Railroad
33 N.Y.S. 679 (Superior Court of New York, 1895)
Faltiska v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad
67 N.Y. St. Rep. 381 (Superior Court of Buffalo, 1895)
Ives v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
28 N.Y.S. 1030 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.E. 289, 138 N.Y. 491, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 86, 93 Sickels 491, 1893 N.Y. LEXIS 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-american-telephone-telegraph-co-ny-1893.