Case Name: James G. Timolat, Resp't, v. S. J. Held Company, App'lt; Oakland Chemical Company, Resp't. v. Same, App'lt
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-02-07
Citations: 72 N.Y. St. Rep. 796
Docket Number: 
Parties: James G. Timolat, Resp’t, v. S. J. Held Company, App’lt. Oakland Chemical Company, Resp’t. v. Same, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 72
Pages: 796–797

Head Matter:
James G. Timolat, Resp’t, v. S. J. Held Company, App’lt. Oakland Chemical Company, Resp’t. v. Same, App’lt.
(New York City Court, General Term,
Filed February 7, 1896.)
APPEAL—F.INDINGS OF REFEREE.
An order, denying a motion to set aside the service of process upon a corporation, on the ground that the person served was not its officer, was affirmed on appeal where the question of fact was submitted to a referee who, after elaborate investigation, reported in the affirmative, and such report was adopted by the judge who denied the motion,
Appeal from an order in each case denying a motion to set aside the service of process.
H. B. Wesselman, for app'lt ; W. R. Beach, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
SCHUCHMAN, J.
—This is an appeal from two orders denying the defendant's motions to set aside the service of the summons, and complaint, on the ground that the person on whom the process, was served was not at the time of such service (November 2, 1895) an officer of the defendant company. The question of fact whether the person served was an officer of the company at the time of service was referred to a referee, who reported in the affirmative, after the, most elaborate investigation, both as to questions of fact and of law. The report is so exhaustive that the court could not improve on it. It was adopted by the judge who denied the motions. ,
Orders affirmed, with costs.
All concur.