Pyter v. Kramp Construction Co.

Plaintiff does not contend here that Klemm was one of the persons designated by statute to receive service binding on the corporation.1

Plaintiff does argue that he is entitled to a one-year extension of the period of limitations and that Klemm, Jrad apparent authority to accept service.

*1641. Extension of period of limitations. Plaintiff contends that Klemm knowingly gave false information to the process server, Frank Hillus, with intent to mislead him in the service of process, and that plaintiff is therefore entitled to a one-year extension of the statute of limitations under sec. 330.14, which…