Eureka Soap Co. v. Jungmann

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Eureka Soap Co. v. Jungmann

121 N.Y.S. 233

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 18, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 121 N.Y.S. 233 (Eureka Soap Co. v. Jungmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eureka Soap Co. v. Jungmann, 121 N.Y.S. 233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

This appeal is taken pursuant to the provisions of section 311 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, c. 580). The complaint served with the summons sets forth that the defendant appellant is a corporation. The appellant’s' affidavits show that the person who was served with the summons and complaint was not an officer, managing agent, or director, but was only a pharmacist employed by the defendant corporation. Whether or not the action against “J. Jung7 mann” was against a natural person or a corporation does not appear in the summons; but it is sufficiently clear from the affidavits of the appellant that J. Jungmann neither as a natural person nor as a corporation was properly served.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

This appeal is taken pursuant to the provisions of section 311 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, c. 580). The complaint served with the summons sets forth that the defendant appellant is a corporation. The appellant’s' affidavits show that the person who was served with the summons and complaint was not an officer, managing agent, or director, but was only a pharmacist employed by the defendant corporation. Whether or not the action against “J. Jung7 mann” was against a natural person or a corporation does not appear in the summons; but it is sufficiently clear from the affidavits of the appellant that J. Jungmann neither as a natural person nor as a corporation was properly served.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 N.Y.S. 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eureka-soap-co-v-jungmann-nyappterm-1910.