#### McKEEVER v. SUPREME COURT I. O. F.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 22, 1907.)

1. Process—Proof of Service—Admission—Sufficiency.

In an action against a foreign insurance company, a written" admission, signed by the Superintendent of Insurance, of service “of process * * * in behalf of James J. McKeever, as administrator,” etc., is fatally defective, as proof of process, as it does not identify the process served.

*10422. Courts—Municipal Court—Jurisdiction—Pleading.

A complaint alleging that defendant is a foreign corporation, but not alleging that it has an office in the city of New York, does not give the Municipal Court of that city jurisdiction; its jurisdiction of actions against foreign corporations being expressly limited to those having offices in the city, by Laws 1902, p. 1488, c. 580, § 1, subd. 18.

3. Corporations—Foreign Corporations—Actions—Jurisdiction.

Proof that a defendant foreign insurance company is an insurance corporation, and that it has filed a written appointment of the Superintendent of Insurance as its attorney to receive service of process against it, required by Laws 1892, p. 1945, c. 690, § 30, is necessary to give jurisdiction of an action against it by admission of service of process by the Superintendent of Insurance.

4. Same—Process—Statutory Provisions.

Insurance Law, Laws 1892, p. 1945, c. 690, § 30, compelling foreign insurance companies to file the written appointment of the Superintendent of Insurance as attorney to receive service of process against them, as a condition precedent to doing business in the state, was intended to provide a way of obtaining personal service on a foreign insurance company, and such service should be deemed to be made within the territorial jurisdiction of the court issuing the process.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, Second District.

Action by James J. McKeever, administrator of Fannie McKeever, against the Supreme Court of the Independent Order of Foresters. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, and MILLER, JJ.

John H. Corwin, for appellant.

August P. Wagener, for respondent.

MILLER, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of the Municipal Court rendered upon its default, and asserts that the plaintiff failed to show personal service of the summons upon it. The only proof of service was a written admission, signed by the Superintendent of Insurance, of service “of process * * * in behalf of James J. McKeever as administrator,” etc. But this alleged admission of service was fatally defective, as it did not identify the process served. The complaint alleges that the defendant is a foreign corporation, but there is no allegation that it has an office in the city of New York, as it would have to have in order to give the Municipal Court jurisdiction (Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1488, c. 580, § 1, subd. 18) ; nor is there any proof that it is an insurance corporation, or that it has „ executed and filed the written appointment provided for in section 30 of the insurance law (Laws 1892, p. 1945, c. 690).

We do not assent to the proposition, argued by the appellant, that service of the summons on the Superintendent of Insurance at Albany would not give the court jurisdiction in any case, for not being service" within the city, but think that such service would have to be deemed service within the city, in case the other jurisdictional facts were shown. In other words, said section 30 of the insurance law was intended to provide a way of obtaining personal service on a foreign in*1043surance corporation, and such service should be deemed to be made within the territorial jurisdiction of the court issuing the process. But this judgment must be reversed for failure to show the jurisdictional facts hereinbefore stated.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed, and new trial ordered; costs to abide the event. All concur.