#### Archer, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and others, Respondents.

*December*15, *1924*

January 13, *1925.*

*Workmen’s compensation: Action to review order dismissing application: Insurance carrier as adverse party: Service on claim adjuster: Validity.*

1. An insurance carrier which has appeared in proceedings for compensation brought by an injured employee is an adverse party within sec. 102.23, Stats., in an action to set aside an order dismissing the employee’s application, and must be made a party defendant by due service, p. 588.

2. Service on a so-called “resident manager” of the insurance company, shown to be a mere claim adjuster, is not service upon the “managing agent” of the corporation within the meaning of sub. (10), sec. 2637, Stats, p. 588.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Plaintiff received an injury while in the employ of the National Brake & Electric Company, which was under the Wisconsin workmen’s compensation act- and insured by the Employers Mutual Liability Company. Both the employer and the insurance company appeared in the proceedings before the *Industrial Commission,*which resulted in a dismissal of plaintiff’s application for an award of damages. To test the correctness of the action of the *Industrial Commission*this action was begun and service was made upon the *Industrial Commission*and the employer, but the only service sought to' be made upon the insurance company was service upon one H. G. Barelman, who was an employee of the insurance company, to wit, one of its adjusters of claims at its branch office in Milwaukee, “but had then and has no other relation whatever of employment or otherwise to the said defendant” insurance company. The trial court held that the insurance company was an adverse party within the meaning of sec. 102.23, Stats., and that it had not been duly *588served. From a judgment dismissing the action the plaintiff appealed.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *William A. Schroeder*and *Jacob S. Rothstein,*both of Milwaukee, and for the respondent *Industrial Commission*on that of the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

Vinje, C. J.

In this case it is held: (1) that an insurance company insuring an employer under the Wisconsin workmen’s compensation act which has appeared in the proceedings for compensation brought by an injured employee is an adverse party within the meaning of sec. 102.23, Stats., in an action by such employee to set aside an order dismissing his petition for compensation, and must be made a party defendant by due service. *Hammond-Chandler L. Co. v. Industrial Comm.*163 Wis. 596, 158 N. W. 292; *Gough v. Industrial Comm.*165 Wis. 632, 162 N. W. 434; *New Dells L. Co. v. Industrial Comm.*166 Wis. 207, 164 N. W. 824; *Youghiogheny & Ohio C. Co. v. Lasevich,*171 Wis. 347, 176 N. W. 855. (2) That service upon a so-called “resident manager” of a corporation, shown to be only a claim adjuster and having no other relation whatever of employment or otherwise to the corporation, is not service upon a “managing agent” of the corporation within the meaning of sec. 2637, sub. (10),

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.