Steinen v. Industrial Fibre Corp.

N.D. Ohio

Steinen v. Industrial Fibre Corp.

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 356, 1923 WL 2713, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1951

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio

DecidedFebruary 27, 1923

DocketNo. 11664

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 356 (Steinen v. Industrial Fibre Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steinen v. Industrial Fibre Corp., 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 356, 1923 WL 2713, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1951 (N.D. Ohio 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTENHAVER, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This was an action brought by Steinen. The petition alleged the defendant to be a Delaware corpora^ tion maintaining its principal office and place of business in Cleveland, engaged in manufacture of artificial silk. The return showed service upon the defendant company by delivering to one Colegrove, plant manager of said company, a true certified copy of the summons. Defendant filed a motion to quaslr the service upon the ground that it was not engaged in business in Ohio, and did not have its principal office here. In support of- the motion it filed aij affidavit stating that Colegrove was an employ^ .of the Industrial.Fibre Co., an Ohio corporation. In sustaining the motion, the court held: l

. 1: As a foreign corporation can only be sued in this district if it is. doing business here, the defendf ant cannot be sued in this district, as it has np managing agent here upon whom service can be had. 'j

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

WESTENHAVER, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This was an action brought by Steinen. The petition alleged the defendant to be a Delaware corpora^ tion maintaining its principal office and place of business in Cleveland, engaged in manufacture of artificial silk. The return showed service upon the defendant company by delivering to one Colegrove, plant manager of said company, a true certified copy of the summons. Defendant filed a motion to quaslr the service upon the ground that it was not engaged in business in Ohio, and did not have its principal office here. In support of- the motion it filed aij affidavit stating that Colegrove was an employ^ .of the Industrial.Fibre Co., an Ohio corporation. In sustaining the motion, the court held: l

. 1: As a foreign corporation can only be sued in this district if it is. doing business here, the defendf ant cannot be sued in this district, as it has np managing agent here upon whom service can be had. 'j

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 356, 1923 WL 2713, 1923 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinen-v-industrial-fibre-corp-ohnd-1923.