Deutsch v. Hoge Brush Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsch v. Hoge Brush Co.

266 A.D. 116, 41 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3500

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 7, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 266 A.D. 116 (Deutsch v. Hoge Brush 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

Deutsch v. Hoge Brush Co., 266 A.D. 116, 41 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The individual appellants Herman Hoge, Arthur Hoge, Gus Hoge, Joel Hoge and Oliver Hoge, all sued herein as “ Hoge Brush Company, individually and d/b [doing business] as a subsidiary of the Hoge Lumber Company, a foreign corporation, ” “were not made parties defendant to this action and were not at any time served with process.

The conduct of the Pennsylvania attorney in obtaining a copy of the complaint and an extension of time to answer was not a general appearance nor did it vest the court with jurisdiction of the person of these nonresident appellants. Moreover, there is no showing that the appearance of the attorney was ever authorized by any one of the appellants. (Amusement Securities Corp. v. Academy Pict. Dist. Corp., 251 App. Div. 227, 229.)

The orders should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the complaint dismissed.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Orders, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the complaint dismissed.

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