From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

TIMOLAT v. S.J. HELD CO

City Court of New York — General Term
Feb 1, 1896
15 Misc. 698 (N.Y. City Ct. 1896)

Opinion

February, 1896.

H.B. Wesselman, for appellant.

W.R. Beach, for respondents.


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 as of law.

The report is so exhausting that the court could not improve on it.

It was adopted by the judge who denied the motions.

Orders affirmed, with costs.

VAN WYCK, Ch. J., and McCARTHY, J., concur.

Orders affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

TIMOLAT v. S.J. HELD CO

City Court of New York — General Term
Feb 1, 1896
15 Misc. 698 (N.Y. City Ct. 1896)
Case details for

TIMOLAT v. S.J. HELD CO

Case Details

Full title:JAMES G. TIMOLAT, Respondent, v . THE S.J. HELD Co., Appellant. THE…

Court:City Court of New York — General Term

Date published: Feb 1, 1896

Citations

15 Misc. 698 (N.Y. City Ct. 1896)