Macbeth, Evans Glass Co. v. Memphis, New Orleans & Cincinnati Packet Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Macbeth, Evans Glass Co. v. Memphis, New Orleans & Cincinnati Packet Co.

1 Teiss. 149, 1904 La. App. LEXIS 28

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 21, 1904

DocketNo. 3342

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Teiss. 149 (Macbeth, Evans Glass Co. v. Memphis, New Orleans & Cincinnati Packet Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Macbeth, Evans Glass Co. v. Memphis, New Orleans & Cincinnati Packet Co., 1 Teiss. 149, 1904 La. App. LEXIS 28 (La. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

DUFOUR, J.

The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania corporation, sued the defendant, also a foreign corporation not having complied with the laws of this State, on a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Service was made on one Wright under the provisions of Act 149 of 1890, and the defendant excepted to the citation on the ground that Wright was not authorized to receive process.

Consideration of the interesting questions presented is made unnecessary by the fair and frank avowal at bar by plaintiff’s counsel. We are merely registering their conclusion when we now hold, that even if the statute may be invoked by non-residents citation served on one who, as Wright in this case, had long ceased to represent the defendant does not bring the latter within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

DUFOUR, J.

The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania corporation, sued the defendant, also a foreign corporation not having complied with the laws of this State, on a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Service was made on one Wright under the provisions of Act 149 of 1890, and the defendant excepted to the citation on the ground that Wright was not authorized to receive process.

Consideration of the interesting questions presented is made unnecessary by the fair and frank avowal at bar by plaintiff’s counsel. We are merely registering their conclusion when we now hold, that even if the statute may be invoked by non-residents citation served on one who, as Wright in this case, had long ceased to represent the defendant does not bring the latter within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Teiss. 149, 1904 La. App. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macbeth-evans-glass-co-v-memphis-new-orleans-cincinnati-packet-co-lactapp-1904.