Case ID: ny-st-rep_60/html/0240-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Julia Mullins, as Administratrix, etc., Resp’t, v. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed May 14, 1894.)
    
    Service of process—Corporations.
    Service of a summons against a life insurance company may be made upon its local superintendent, within the provisions of § 431 of the Code.
    Appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside the service of a summons.
    
      Arnoux, Riich & Woodford (Wm. H. Arnoux and John McQ. Qoodale, of counsel), for app’lt; William Riley, for resp’t
   Pratt, J.

The justice had evidence before him which justified him in finding that Skidmore was a managing agent of defendant, and his decision is binding upon us. We think that the duties of Skidmore, as set forth in the manual of defendant, quoted in appellant’s points, are sufficient to sustain the finding. “As superintendent, you have general supervision of the business of your district.” An agent who has general supervision of a business is a managing agent. The district in which the powers are exercised may he limited, but the powers are general. Bain v. Globe Insurance Co., 9 How. Pr. 448; Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 35 Hun, 370; Rochester, H. & L. R. Co. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 48 id. 190; 15 St. Rep. 686; Barrett v. American Telegraph Co., 31 id. 465; 10 N. Y. Supp. 138; Brayton v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 54 St. Rep. 763 ; 25 N. Y. Supp. 264,—are in point, and sustain the conclusion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Brown, P. J., concurs; Dykman, J., dissenting. See opinion in Stubing v. Insurance Co., post.