Case Name: William N. Coler et al., Resp'ts, v. Pittsburgh Bridge Company, Impleaded, etc., App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-02-11
Citations: 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 714
Docket Number: 
Parties: William N. Coler et al., Resp’ts, v. Pittsburgh Bridge Company, Impleaded, etc., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 65
Pages: 714–715

Head Matter:
William N. Coler et al., Resp’ts, v. Pittsburgh Bridge Company, Impleaded, etc., App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 11, 1895.)
Service and proof—Corporation—Foreign.
The person, upon whom service is made under subd. 3, § 433 of the Code, need not be the managing agent in this state, but should be of sufficient responsibility to render it probable that the company received notice of the service.
Appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside the service of' a summons.
J. Adriance Bush, for app’lt; Charles F. MacLean, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made by the defendant to set aside the service of the summons in this action. The service was made upon Walter N". Curtis, who was the Chicago agent of the defendant, which is a foreign corporation. N"o person had been designated by the defendant upon whom process against it could be served, and neither the president, treasurer, nor secretary resided in this state. It is difficult to determine in all cases what agents are " managing agents," within the meaning of the section of the Code of Civil Procedure which permits service upon such agents, and each case must necessarily depend upon its own facts. The test is not, however, whether the agent is subject to the control of the directors of the corporation, because all agents are so. Neither is it necessary that the person served should be a managing agent in this state. The-' Code attaches no such condition to the validity of such service. A reasonable requirement seems to be that the person served should be of sufficient responsibility to render it probable that the company will receive notice of the service. That end has been attained in this case, and, though the extent of the powers of Curtis as the agent of the defendant are not very fully stated, we .think they were sufficient to constitute him a " managing agent," within the meaning of the Code. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
All concur.