Case Name: NATIONAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve SZUKHENT and Robert Szukhent, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1962-12-06
Citations: 311 F.2d 79
Docket Number: No. 21, Docket 27486
Parties: NATIONAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve SZUKHENT and Robert Szukhent, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 311
Pages: 79–84

Head Matter:
NATIONAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve SZUKHENT and Robert Szukhent, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21, Docket 27486.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 11, 1962.
Decided Dec. 6, 1962.
Leonard P. Moore, Circuit Judge, dissented.
Wilbur G. Silverman, Jamaica, N. Y., for plaintiff-appellant.
Harry R. Schwartz, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendants-appellees.
Before CLARK, MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Defendants, residents of. Michigan, obtained farm equipment in Michigan on a lease from plaintiff, a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in New York. Claiming default, plaintiff sued for payments under the lease in the Eastern District of New York, the marshal delivering two copies of the summons and complaint to one Florence Weinberg as agent designated in the lease for the purpose of accepting process for defendants in the State of New York. The copies were promptly forwarded by Weinberg to defendants by mail with a covering letter under an agreement between Weinberg and plaintiff to perform this service without compensation. Nothing in the lease required notice to defendants. Plaintiff also notified defendants by mail promptly on the purported service of the process. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, John F. Dooling, Jr., D. J., held the service invalid and quashed the service. Plaintiff appeals. We agree with the District Court that no valid agency of, Weinberg for defendants was created by the instrument in suit and affirm the order.
The lease contract here was on a printed form provided by plaintiff. There is no requirement in the purported appointment of the agent for any notice to defendants. A provision for notice would be essential to the validity of a state statute providing for substituted service on a statutory "agent". Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13, 48 S.Ct. 259, 72 L.Ed. 446 (1928). There is no such requirement when individuals freely contract for a method of substituted service. Lack of such a provision in a contract of adhesion, here involved, may, however, be considered in determining the meaning and effect of the provisions of the contract. There is no provision in the lease for any undertaking by the purported agent to act for, or give notice to her purported principal. Normally, an agency exists only if there has been a manifestation by the principal to the agent that the agent may act on his account, and consent by the agent so to act, Restatement Agency § 15, and the agent is subject to control by the principal, Restatement Agency § 1. Plaintiff's affidavits demonstrate that Weinberg was acting under an agreement with and supervision of the plaintiff, having undertaken no obligations to defendants, to whom she was unknown. Defendants never dealt with her and had no indication of any undertaking on her part to act as their agent until receipt of the process many months later. The court properly held such a purported appointment unreal and ineffective to create a genuine agency of Weinberg for defendants.
Plaintiff might have provided, with defendants' agreement, that service or notice be waived or that notice be given by plaintiff. See Bowles v. J. J. Schmitt & Co., 170 F.2d 617, 622 (2 Cir. 1948), Gilbert v. Burnstine, 255 N.Y. 348, 174 N.E. 706, 73 A.L.R. 1453 (1931). This would, however, have required defendants' consent, which might or might not have been forthcoming. The illusory purported agency provision, however, is properly held ineffective to subject defendants to suit in New York.
Affirmed.