Steinberg v. Landair Associated Corp.

S.D. New York

Steinberg v. Landair Associated Corp.

10 F.R.D. 447, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3691

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJune 1, 1950

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 F.R.D. 447 (Steinberg v. Landair Associated Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steinberg v. Landair Associated Corp., 10 F.R.D. 447, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3691 (S.D.N.Y. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

MEDINA, District Judge.

It appears to be established by the affidavits submitted in support of this motion that Ralph E. Still was not an officer or director •of defendant Oceanic Trading Co., Inc., at the time of the delivery to him of copies of the summons and complaint. But the determination of the further question of whether lie was “a managing or general agent” or '“any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of proc•ess”, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 4(d) (3) 28 U.S.C.A., cannot be made without information concerning the amount and character •of the business; if any, transacted by said •defendant within the jurisdiction of this Court at or about the time of the purported service of process. The record before me is not sufficiently clear and comprehensive to justify either the granting or the denial of the motion. Accordingly, I hereby designate Julian J. Appleton of 165 Broadway, New York, N. Y., as Special Master to take evidence on all the issues involved on this motion and to report thereon to the Court.

Settle order on notice.

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

MEDINA, District Judge.

It appears to be established by the affidavits submitted in support of this motion that Ralph E. Still was not an officer or director •of defendant Oceanic Trading Co., Inc., at the time of the delivery to him of copies of the summons and complaint. But the determination of the further question of whether lie was “a managing or general agent” or '“any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of proc•ess”, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 4(d) (3) 28 U.S.C.A., cannot be made without information concerning the amount and character •of the business; if any, transacted by said •defendant within the jurisdiction of this Court at or about the time of the purported service of process. The record before me is not sufficiently clear and comprehensive to justify either the granting or the denial of the motion. Accordingly, I hereby designate Julian J. Appleton of 165 Broadway, New York, N. Y., as Special Master to take evidence on all the issues involved on this motion and to report thereon to the Court.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F.R.D. 447, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinberg-v-landair-associated-corp-nysd-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack