Case ID: nys_37/html/0217-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SCHUCHMAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TIMOLAT v. S. J. HELD CO. OAKLAND CHEMICAL CO. v. SAME.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    February 7, 1896.)
    Review on Appeal—Findings op Referee.
    An order denying a motion to set aside the service of process upon a corporation, on the ground that the person served was not an officer of the corporation, will be affirmed where the question of fact was submitted to a referee, who reported in the affirmative, after elaborate investigation; such report being adopted by the judge who denied the motion.
    Appeal from special term.
    Actions by James G. Timolat and the Oakland Chemical Company against the S. J. Held Company. From an order in each case denying a motion to set aside the service of process, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before VAN WYCK, C. J., and McCARTHY and SCHUCHMAN, JJ.
    H. B. Wesselman, for appellant.
    W. R. Beach, for respondents.
   SCHUCHMAN, J.

This is an appeal from two orders denying the defendant’s motions to set aside the service of the summons, and complaint, on the ground that the person on whom the process was served was not at the time of such service (November 2, 1895) an officer of the defendant company. The question of fact whether the person served was an officer of the company at the time of service was referred to a referee, who reported in the affirmative, after the most elaborate investigation, both as to questions of fact and of law. The report is so exhaustive that the court could not improve on it. It was adopted by the judge who denied the motions. Orders affirmed, with costs. All concur. '