state; that the attachment was levied upon moneys belonging to the company in- the hands of one Rutzler, which moneys were claimed by one Colwell; that Colwell received from Rutzler the papers served upon and left with him by the deputy sheriff who levied the attachment; that Colwell communicated the fact of the attachment and the action to the board of directors of the defendant corporation, and advised them to take some action in the matter ; that he called on plaintiff’s attorney, and suggested giving, a bond for the release of the attachment; that he promised to aid in making service of process, and directed that nothing further be done until advised by him. During all this time Colwell was the managing agent of the defendant. The papers which Colwell received from Rutzler, and which were left with the latter by the deputy sheriff when he levied the attachment, were the summons and complaint in this action and the affidavit and undertaking upon attachment. The delivery of these papers to him was a sufficient service of the summons upon the defendant within the prescribed time. Service upon a foreign coporation may be made upon its managing agent. Code, § 432, subd. 3. It is contended that the service was not good, because the papers were not delivered to Colwell by Rutzler with intent'to effect a service, and, after being taken away by Colwell, were afterwards returned by him to Rutzler. But the delivery of the papers to Colwell, and the knowledge of the company of the action, through his communication to the directors, was sufficient service, under the Code. The object of the summons is to advise tke defendant of the commencement of the action, so that he may protect his rights, and the object was fully accomplished in this case.
Chemical Works v. Jochen, 8 Civ. Proc. R. 424. In that case the summons had been left by a deputy sheriff with a stranger, not on defendant’s premises, but it reached the bookkeeper of defendant, and was delivered to the latter, who' placed it in the hands of his attorney; and that was held to be sufficient service, under section 638 of the Code. In this case the papers were left with the custodian of the property attached, who delivered them to the managing agent of the defendant; and- the board of directors of the latter was notified, and placed the matter in the hands of its attorneys. The cases are very much alike, and the reasoning of the decision is clearly applicable. In the case cited, as in this, there were facts and circumstances which warrant the impression that the course of events was watched and uninterrupted with a view to defeat the plaintiff’s attachment, and in this case there is evidence of active means taken by Colwell to effect that purpose.
The affidavits present a question of fact as to whether Colwell was the general agent of the company, but the weight of evidence is with the plaintiff. It is conceded that he was the manager of the company up to April, 1894, and the burden was on defendant to show the termination of the relations. Upon proof that one had been agent and had resigned even, but still acted in some capacity for the defendant, it is for the latter to show the precise nature and extent of his agency, as it was obviously within its power to do so. Donaldi v. Insurance Co., 2 E.