Paducah Cooperage Co. v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 85. — PROSECUTION AGAINST THE PADUCAH COOPERAGE CO., FOR FAILING TO HAVE AN AGENT AT ITS KNOWN PLACE OF BUSINESS ON WHOM PROCESS COULD BE SERVED. — May 4. Appeal from. Crittenden Cironit Court. J. F. Gordon, Circuit Judge.
Read the full summary
CASE 85. — PROSECUTION AGAINST THE PADUCAH COOPERAGE CO., FOR FAILING TO HAVE AN AGENT AT ITS KNOWN PLACE OF BUSINESS ON WHOM PROCESS COULD BE SERVED. — May 4. Appeal from. Crittenden Cironit Court. J. F. Gordon, Circuit Judge. Defendant convicted and appeals. 1. Our contention is that the removal of the agent of the appellant corporation from Paducah where its office is located, to Louisville did not operate to set aside his designation as agent of the corporation upon whom process could he served as required by Kentucky Statutes, sec. 571. 2. The intention of sec. 571 is only to give…
1Opinion of the Court
OpikioN op the Court by
Judge O'’Rear
— Reversing.
Appellant wias indicted and convicted under the' charge of failing to have an authorized agent at its known place of business' on whom process could be served. This offense is. created by section 571, Ky. Stat., 1903, which reads as follows: “All corporations except foreign insurance companies formed under the laws of this or any other State, and carrying on any business in this State, shall at all times have one or more known places of business in this State, and an authorized agent or agents thereat, upon whom process can be served; and it…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kentucky Bonding Co. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- House v. Bank of LewisportCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917