Legal Opinion

Hamill v. Great Northern Copper Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1927No. File No. 6082PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlURCH, J.

Respondents Hamill & Perkins are partners doing business at Pittsburg, Pa. Appellant, the Great Northern 'Copper Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of South Dakota, but its principal place of business is in Pittsburg, Pa. On August 14, 1924, respondents commenced an action against appellant by service of a summons on W. A. Johns, resident agent at Huron, S. D., to recover on account, $18,470.93. Johns forwarded the summons to A. E. Roose, president of the corporation, at Pittsburg, who acknowledged the receipt thereof on September 2, 1924. On the 26th day of September, 1924,…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dunham v. First National Bank in Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Malcom v. Stondall Land and Investment CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Hamill v. Great Northern Copper Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Malcom v. Stondall Land and Investment CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Malcom v. Stondall Land and Investment CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1955

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API