Meyer v. Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mut. Fire Ins.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York

Meyer v. Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mut. Fire Ins.

108 F. 169, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4538

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York

DecidedApril 22, 1901

DocketNo. 17

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 F. 169 (Meyer v. Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mut. Fire Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyer v. Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mut. Fire Ins., 108 F. 169, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4538 (circtwdny 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

HAZEL, District Judge.

This is a motion to set aside service of the summons upon the defendant. Service was made upon a director of the corporation within the state of Hew York. The director has his permanent residence at Home, in this state. The cause of action arose within the state. Moreover, I am of the opinion that the company is doing business within this state, and therefore a director of the defendant is a proiier officer upon whom service of the summons can be effected. Code Civ. Proc. § 432; Insurance Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602, 19 Sup. Ct. 308, 43 L. Ed. 569; Childs v. Manufacturing Co., 104 N. Y. 477, 11 N. E. 50. The opinion of Judge Wallace in Good Hope Co. v. Railway Barb-Fencing Co. (C. C.) 22 Fed. 635, bears out this contention. 'The case of Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 15 Sup. Ct. 559, 39 L. Ed. 517, relied upon by defendant’s counsel, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In that case the officer served was temporarily within the jurisdiction of the state of New York, and had no permanent residence or domicile therein. The motion to set aside service of the summons is denied. •

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

HAZEL, District Judge.

This is a motion to set aside service of the summons upon the defendant. Service was made upon a director of the corporation within the state of Hew York. The director has his permanent residence at Home, in this state. The cause of action arose within the state. Moreover, I am of the opinion that the company is doing business within this state, and therefore a director of the defendant is a proiier officer upon whom service of the summons can be effected. Code Civ. Proc. § 432; Insurance Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602, 19 Sup. Ct. 308, 43 L. Ed. 569; Childs v. Manufacturing Co., 104 N. Y. 477, 11 N. E. 50. The opinion of Judge Wallace in Good Hope Co. v. Railway Barb-Fencing Co. (C. C.) 22 Fed. 635, bears out this contention. 'The case of Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 15 Sup. Ct. 559, 39 L. Ed. 517, relied upon by defendant’s counsel, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In that case the officer served was temporarily within the jurisdiction of the state of New York, and had no permanent residence or domicile therein. The motion to set aside service of the summons is denied. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 F. 169, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-pennsylvania-lumbermens-mut-fire-ins-circtwdny-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack