Hagerty v. National Fur & Tanning Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Martin county to recover $400. The defendant appeared specially and moved to set aside the service of the summons. Erom an order, Quinn, J., denying the motion, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
This appeal questions the validity of the service of the summons upon the defendant, a foreign corporation. Affidavits on the part of defendant tended to show that it is a Nebraska corporation, there having its officers, property and business; that it employs traveling salesmen, one of whom was E. A. Krueger upon whom the service was made; that said salesmen are employed upon a commission basis to solicit orders for new fur garments .and garments to be repaired in this state subject to acceptance or rejection by defendant; that Krueger had no other authority, and that, except as stated, it…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Commercial Mutual Accident Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mutual Fire Insurance v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Premo Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Jersey-Creme Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1912
- Fond du Lac Cheese & Butter Co v. Henningsen Produce Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Dahl v. ColletteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Louis F. Dow Co. v. First National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Massee v. Consumers Hay Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Massey Steamship Co. v. Norske Lloyd InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Nienhauser v. Robertson Paper Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.