Hyperlawhypertext legal database Barrett v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 86

← Cases

Barrett v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

53 N.Y. St. Rep. 86 Court N.Y. Decision date 1893-06-13 English

Delivered by Gray, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 86
Clarissa J. Barrett, Resp’t, v. The American Telephone & Telegraph Co., App’lt.[1]
(Court of Appeals,
Filed June 13, 1893.)

Headnote

Service—Corporations—Telegraph companies.
The general superintendent of the work of operating the lines of a telegraph company is a managing agent within the meaning of that term as used in § 431 of the Code, and service upon him is sufficient.
Appeal from order of the supreme court, general term, second department, affirming order denying motion to set aside the service of the summons herein.
Melville Egleston, for app’lt; W. B. Yeomans, for resp’t.

The defendant seeks to set aside the service of the summons in this action for having made upon its general superintendent It is a domestic corporation, and, under § 431 of

p. 87
the Code, such a service, if not made upon the president, secretary, cashier, treasurer or a director, might be made upon its managing agent It appeared from the affidavits, read on behalf of the defendant company, that the person served was the general superintendent of the work of operating the lines of the company. It was said of him that he was given that title “ to distinguish him from superintendents of divisions of its lines, and from superintendents of other departments of business.” That was a sufficiently broad agency or delegation of power to constitute him a managing agent of the company. The design of the statute was to secure notice of the commencement of a suit to the corporation, and it is very apparent, from the description in the statute of the persons upon whom service might be made, that the legislature intended to facilitate such service, and only required that the person to be served should sustain such responsible and representative relations to the corporation as would be comprehended in the term “ managing agent” This language would exclude persons holding such subordinate or clerical positions as imposed no responsibility upon them; but plainly would include a person holding so responsible and representative an office as did the general superintendent of this company.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.