Bigelow v. Whitehall Manufacturing Co.
New York Marine Court
The complaints herein, having been served upon the defendant, it appeared by its attorneys, and served a combined answer and demurrer thereto, which was returned to the attorneys who served the same, with the following reasons therefor indorsed thereon. (1.) Because improperly verified. (2.) As irregular, in joining in one plea the answer and demurrer. (3.) That it was served without authority.
Read the full summary
The complaints herein, having been served upon the defendant, it appeared by its attorneys, and served a combined answer and demurrer thereto, which was returned to the attorneys who served the same, with the following reasons therefor indorsed thereon. (1.) Because improperly verified. (2.) As irregular, in joining in one plea the answer and demurrer. (3.) That it was served without authority. The plaintiff in each action thereupon entered judgment as by default, and the defendant moves to set said judgments aside as irregularly entered.
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.
The verification was properly made by one of the trustees and directors of the defendant, a domestic corporation. He is an “ officer” of the corporation, within the meaning of section 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section must be read in connection with section 431 of the Code, under subdivision 3 of which a director is designated as a suitable officer upon whom process may be served to bring his corporation into court. If the service of process upon him brings his corporation into court, it would be a solecism to hold that it cannot be heard in defense, through him, after it gets…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Glaubensklee v. Hamburgh & American Packet Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1859