Golden Paper Co. v. Clark
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to Probate Court of Jefferson County. Assumpsit on a promissory note brought by Clark, the defendant in error, against the Holden Paper Co. and A. P. Anderson, plaintiffs in error, impleaded with Reuben C. Wells. The question presented by the record is to the sufficiency of the service of process upon the defendants below.
Read the full summary
Error to Probate Court of Jefferson County. Assumpsit on a promissory note brought by Clark, the defendant in error, against the Holden Paper Co. and A. P. Anderson, plaintiffs in error, impleaded with Reuben C. Wells. The question presented by the record is to the sufficiency of the service of process upon the defendants below. The return of the officer was as follows: “Territory oe Colorado, ) County of Jefferson, j s' “ Served the within summons by delivering a copy thereof to A. P. Anderson, and by delivering a copy of the same to Frank A. Hartzell, who is and was an agent of the Golden…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
1. The return of service upon the corporation defendant seems to us to be sufficient. The fair interpretation of the fourth section of the Practice Act (Revised Statutes, chap. 70, § 4) requires that service shall be made upon the president, if found. If the residence of the chief officer, in the county to which process is issued, shall preclude service upon any other official or agent, it will be an easy matter for the corporation to avoid service altogether. If the president be not found, the sheriff is under no obligation to distinguish between the other officials ; he may serve any…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Illinois & Mississippi Telegraph Co. v. KennedyIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by5 opinions
- Stubbs v. McGillisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
- Martin v. SimpkinsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894
- McClure v. SmithSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
- Salisbury v. LaFitteColorado Court of Appeals · 1912
- Salisbury v. LaFitteColorado Court of Appeals · 1912