Straub v. Lyman Land & Investment Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
On rehearing. In the opinion in the case at bar it is stated: “If service upon an officer of a foreign corporation within this state may be deemed due process of law, we see no reason why service of process upo’n an officer of a domestic corporation residing in a foreign state may not likewise be deemed due process as well.” . If this conclusion be sound, by parity of reasoning, we might conclude that the provision of subdivision 2, sec. no, C. C. P., relating to service…
Read the full summary
On rehearing. In the opinion in the case at bar it is stated: “If service upon an officer of a foreign corporation within this state may be deemed due process of law, we see no reason why service of process upo’n an officer of a domestic corporation residing in a foreign state may not likewise be deemed due process as well.” . If this conclusion be sound, by parity of reasoning, we might conclude that the provision of subdivision 2, sec. no, C. C. P., relating to service upon railroad corporations, that service upon the acting ticket, station 'or other (agent of the company, if none were to…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This cause is before us on rehearing, which was granted and a^ reargument permitted, because of the importance and novelty of the main question involved. The original opinion is reported in 138. N. W. 959. We are not disposed to change the views there expressed as to the interpretation of the provisions of section no, Code 'Civ. Proc. This statute by necessary implication divides corporations into two general classes — domestic and foreign. It also distinguishes certain classes of cases in which service may be made on foreign corporations. As to this class of corporations, service can be made…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Raher v. RaherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Nelson v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1906
- Pinney v. Providence Loan & Investment Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Clearwater Mercantile Co. v. Roberts, Johnson, Rand Shoe Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1906
3Cited by7 opinions
- United National Bank v. SearlesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
- Bennett v. Chicago Lumber & Coal Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- In re HendricksonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1918
- State v. SmithSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
- Straub v. Lyman Land & Investment Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.