Bersin v. John Boath, Junr., & Co.

198 A.D. 344, 190 N.Y.S. 398, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8093
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 4, 1921
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 198 A.D. 344 (Bersin v. John Boath, Junr., & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bersin v. John Boath, Junr., & Co., 198 A.D. 344, 190 N.Y.S. 398, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

Page, J.:

The defendant is a foreign corporation, having its principal place of business in Scotland. Schofield & Walter are the sales agents of the defendant with a place of business at 14-16 White street in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York. They solicit orders, enter into contracts for the sale and delivery of the defendant’s merchandise, and the goods are shipped and the bills of lading are sent to Schofield & Walter in many instances. This course of business has been pursued for a number of years. Thus there resulted a continuous course [345]*345of business in the solicitation of orders which were sent to Scotland and in response to which deliveries were made in the city of New York. That the contracts of sale have to be approved by the defendant in Scotland, and remittances made, as the defendant claims they generally were, to the defendant in Scotland, is immaterial. (Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579.)

In the instant case it was shown that James Schofield, the person served with process, was a member of the firm of Schofield & Walter, and was the managing agent of the business that the defendant transacted within this State. The service of the summons upon him was, therefore, a valid service of process upon the defendant.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Clabke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling and Mebbell, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

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

Related

Schwartz v. Breakers Hotel Corp.
13 Misc. 2d 508 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
New York Automatic Canteen Corp. v. Keepel & Ruof, Inc.
195 Misc. 526 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1949)
Martin v. Barrett-Cravens Co.
164 Misc. 69 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)
In re the Arbitration between Biddle Purchasing Co. & Yung Hsing Trading Corp.
238 A.D. 264 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)
Hall v. Weil-Kalter Manufacturing Co.
199 A.D. 592 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 A.D. 344, 190 N.Y.S. 398, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bersin-v-john-boath-junr-co-nyappdiv-1921.