Source: http://openjurist.org/258/f2d/287/meyer-v-indian-hill-farm
Timestamp: 2016-10-23 18:10:35
Document Index: 234352073

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 229', '§ 235', '§ 229', '§ 235', '§ 232', '§ 235', '§ 232', '§ 232', '§ 235']

258 F2d 287 Meyer v. Indian Hill Farm | OpenJurist
258 F. 2d 287 - Meyer v. Indian Hill Farm HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 258 F.2d.
258 F2d 287 Meyer v. Indian Hill Farm 258 F.2d 287
Alexander MEYER, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.INDIAN HILL FARM, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, andNathan Krupnick, Pacific Fire Insurance Company, Continental Casualty Company, The People of the State of New York, United States of America, and John Doe, Henry Doe, Mary Roe and Helen Poe, the last four names being fictitious, the true names of said defendants being unknown to plaintiff and the parties intended being any persons, firms or corporations not specifically named therein in possession of or claiming any right to possession of the premises herein described, or any part thereof, as tenants, occupants or otherwise defendants, Defendants.UNITED STATES of America, Libellant,v.CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, KNOWN AS THE INDIAN HILL FARM.Nathan KRUPNICK, Plaintiff,v.Jean CLEMENS, as Administratrix of the goods, credits and chattels of Michael Clemens, Deceased, Indian Hill Farm, Inc. and United States of America, Defendants.
Nos. 343-345.
Dockets 24999-25001.
Indian Hill, however, contends that service of process by delivery to a "public officer designated for the purpose pursuant to law" under § 229 of the New York Civil Practice Act does not include an officer designated by the law of New Jersey. But this has been decisively settled by Howard Converters, Inc., v. French A. Mills, 1937, 273 N.Y. 238, 7 N.E.2d 115. In that case the plaintiff, who had a contract claim against a New Jersey corporation, commenced the proceeding by attaching New York property of the corporation. It then served a summons in New Jersey upon the agent of the corporation designated to receive service of process by the law of New Jersey. This service was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Referring to the same language of § 235 and § 229 discussed above, the court held that service was to be made upon that person in another state who by the law of that state is in a position equivalent to that of the person within New York who may be served. The only distinctions between that case and this — to wit, that § 235 was invoked under a different provision of § 232, involving actions initiated by attachment of property rather than actions to enforce a lien upon property, and that service was there made upon a designated agent rather than, as here, upon the Secretary of State in the absence of a designated agent — do not affect the rationale of the decision.
In its entirety § 235 reads as follows:
In its entirety § 232 reads as follows:
The first paragraph of § 232-b, relevant here, reads as follows:
New Jersey Rev.Stat. 14:13-14, as amended in 1953, N.J.S.A., reads as follows:
See Heilbrunn v. Kellogg, 1939, 279 N.Y. 773, 18 N.E.2d 312, affirming 1937, 253 App.Div. 753, 1 N.Y.S.2d 193, which holds that service of process on defendant outside the state under § 235 in mortgage foreclosure action allows court to make judgment disposing of property but will not support a strictlyin personam deficiency judgment.