Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 23, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to set aside the service of a summons.
Read the full summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 23, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to set aside the service of a summons. The Appellate Division certified the following questions; “ 1. 'Was the defendant, at the time of the service of the summons herein, doing business within the state of New York within the meaning of section 1780, subdivision 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure ? “2. Has the plaintiff shown such diligence in attempting to serve one of the officers specified in…
1Opinion of the CourtCardozo, J.
The plaintiff, a resident of this state, has brought suit against the Susquehanna Coal Company, a Pennsylvania corporation. The defendant’s principal office is in Philadelphia ; but it has a branch office in New York, which is in charge of one Peterson. Peterson’s duties are described by the defendant as those of a sales agent. He has eight.salesmen under him, who are subject to his orders. A suite of offices is maintained in the Equitable Building in the city of New York, and there the sales agent and his subordinates make their headquarters. The sign on the door is “ Susquehanna Coal…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- United States v. Jin Fuey MoySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- International Textbook Co. v. PiggSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Simon v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by573 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Daimler AG v. BaumanSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- People v. PequeNew York Court of Appeals · 2013
- Hoffritz for Cutlery, Inc. And Edwin Jay, Inc. v. Amajac, Ltd. And Jack E. AyersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
568 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.