Case ID: ny_247/html/0548-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ray D. Lillibridge, Inc., Appellant, v. Johnson Bronze Company, Respondent.
    
      Jurisdiction — corporations — foreign* corporation not doing business within State — service of summons properly set aside.
    
    
      IAllibridge, Inc., v. Johnson Bronze Co., 220 App. Div. 573, affirmed.
    (Argued January 9, 1928;
    decided January 20, 1928.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 20,, 1927, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to set aside service of the summons and complaint and granted said, motion.
    ■ Defendant is a foreign corporation having its principal office and factory in the State-where incorporated. It has no office in New York and has not qualified, to do business in this State. This action was to, recover for an alleged breach of contract. Service of the summons and complaint was made upon an alleged managing agent of defendant. The facts show that he was engaged in the business of soliciting orders for several concerns, including the defendant. He maintained his own office and on his own authority placed defendant’s name in the telephone book and on his office door followed by his name and the word “ manager.”
    The following questions were certified: “ 1. Was the defendant, at the time of the service of the summons herein, doing business within the State of New York in such a sense and in such a degree as to subject it to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York? 2. Were the duties of and the authority conferred upon Edward Laterman, the defendant’s sales agent, such as to constitute him a managing agent of the defendant corporation within the meaning of section 229, subdivision 3, of the Civil Practice Act? ”
    
      Gilbert B. Montague, Joseph W. Goodwin and John K. Holbrook, Jr.., for appellant.
    
      E. Raymond Shepard and Hiram C. Todd for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Hamlin v. Barrett & Co. (246 N. Y. 554). First question certified answered in the negative; second not answered.

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ.