Case Name: THE TAYLOR PROVISION COMPANY v. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1904-11-14
Citations: 71 N.J.L. 523
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE TAYLOR PROVISION COMPANY v. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
THE TAYLOR PROVISION COMPANY v. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY.
Submitted July 12, 1904
Decided November 14, 1904.
After the general counsel of a company has announced' to the attorney of the plaintiff that a certain agent was authorized to accept service of a summons and service is thereafter made upon such agent, it is too late for the company to question the sufficiency of the service.
This is a writ of certiorari bringing up an order entered in the Mercer county Circuit Court, similar to the one in the case of Saunders v. Adams Express Company.
Before Justices Fort and Reed.
For the prosecutor, McCarter, Williamson & McCarter.
For the defendant, Vroom, Dickinson & Scammell.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The service in this case was made upon Cawle)', the Trenton agent of the company. Cawley was sworn, and said that he was the local agent at Trenton. It does not appear what the transaction was out of which the suit springs, as the plaintiff declared, upon the common counts alone. Mr. Murphy, the superintendent of the-Atlantic division of the Adams Express Company, in his deposition, said that Thomas De Witt Cuyler was the counsel of the company, and that he had designated him as general counsel, and perhaps he was. He also identified Mr. Cuyler's signature to a letter written by Mr. Cuyler in reply to a letter from Mr; Scammell, the attorney of the plaintiff. In that letter Mr. Cuyler informed Mr. Scammell that Cawley, the agent at Trenton, was authorized to accept service of a summons. There was no denial that Mr. Cuyler had general supervision of the litiga tion of the company. If so, then, after he had announced to the plaintiff that a certain agent was authorized to accept service of a summons, and service was thereafter made upon such agent, it was too late for the company to question the sufficiency of the service.
The order below is affirmed.