Case ID: nys_126/html/0692-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CASTELL v. STERLING FIRE INS. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    January 5, 1911.)
    Corporations (§ 668)—Foreign Corporations—Process.
    Service on a representative of a corporation authorized to do business in the state did not give jurisdiction over a foreign corporation not so authorized, for which the former corporation acted as agent.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2603-2627; Dec. Dig. § 668.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court; Borough of Manhattan, First District.
    ' Action by Samuel Castell against the Sterling Fire Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    See, also, 125 N. Y. Supp. 788.
    Argued before GIEGERICH, BRADY, and GAVEGAN, JJ.
    Louis H. Porter, for appellant.
    Van Iderstine, Badger & Barker, for respondent.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, "& Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

The papers show that the person served was a representative of a corporation authorized to do business within the state, and which acts as the agent of the defendant, a foreign corporation not so authorized. While service on the person served might be said to confer jurisdiction over the corporation employing him, it is in no sense service on the defendant corporation; there being no provision in the Code that service on the agent is service on the principal.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.