Porter v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.

1 Neb. 14
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 1 Neb. 14 (Porter v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Porter v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 1 Neb. 14 (Neb. 1871).

Opinion

Mason, Ch. J.

The defendant transacts all its business in this State, at its office in Omaha. The person served with this summons is superintendent of this office, as well as of that at Council Bluffs. He has the general direction and management of its business at the former office. An agent who is invested with the general conduct and control, at a particular place, of the business of a corporation, is a managing agent, within the meaning of the 75 th section of the Code, which authorizes service of summons on a managing agent of a foreign corporation, and it is immaterial where he resides.

It is not necessary to decide here whether the appearance entered by the defendant was such as to give the court jurisdiction, if the service was insufficient. I think a defendant may appear specially to object to the jui’isdiction of the court, either over his person or the subject matter of the suit, without waiving his right to be heard on the question in bank. But if, by motion or by any other form of application to the court, he seek to bring its powers into action, except on the question of jurisdiction, he will be deemed to have appeared generally. Such application concedes a cause over which the court has power to act. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Cockle v. Cockle
339 N.W.2d 63 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1983)
Wilken v. Moorman Manufacturing Co.
235 N.W. 671 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1931)
Jorgensen v. J. C. Robinson Seed Co.
199 N.W. 855 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1924)
McArdle v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.
170 N.W. 356 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1919)
Scott v. Scott
174 Iowa 740 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Brophy v. Fairmont Creamery Co.
152 N.W. 557 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1915)
Ritchie v. Illinois Central Railroad
128 N.W. 35 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1910)
Federal Betterment Co. v. Reeves
84 P. 560 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)
Ferrell v. Camden
50 S.E. 733 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1905)
Brown v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Path Railway Co.
95 N.W. 153 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
Rush v. Foos Manufacturing Co.
51 N.E. 143 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1898)
Baldwin v. Burt
74 N.W. 594 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
South Omaha National Bank v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank
63 N.W. 128 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
Hurlburt v. Palmer
57 N.W. 1019 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Klopp, Bartlett & Co. v. Creston City Guarantee Water-works Co.
52 N.W. 819 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1892)
Brown v. Rice
46 N.W. 489 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1890)
Cleghorn v. Waterman
16 Neb. 226 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1884)
Walker v. Lutz
14 Neb. 274 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1883)
Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn
3 Neb. 108 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Neb. 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-chicago-northwestern-railway-co-neb-1871.