Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

[DOWNLOAD] "Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works" by Supreme Court of the United States " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works

πŸ“˜ Read Now     πŸ“₯ Download


eBook details

  • Title: Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works
  • Author : Supreme Court of the United States
  • Release Date : January 18, 1903
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 62 KB

Description

as assignee of T. T. Mathieson brought this action in the Supreme Court of New York County, State of New York, against the defendant for moneys alleged to be due on a contract made and entered into by Mathieson and defendant. The complaint alleged that the contract was made in the city on New York on the 15th of August, 1893. The articles of agreement show that Mathiesons employment was as general superintendent for the term of eight years, in the erection and general management of the works of the corporation, "and also of their operation, after the same shall have been erected." The defendant had designated no agent upon whom service could have been made, and summons was served on R. T. Wilson and John G. Agar, two members of the board of directors of the corporation, both residents of the city of New York. They were not officers of the company. Before the time for answer had expired, on defendants motion the cause was transferred to the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. A motion was made in that court to set aside the summons and service as null and void. Affidavits were presented by both parties, and ruling on them the court said that if the facts stated by the affidavits of the defendant were true, that at the time of the service of the summons and for some months before defendant corporation had ceased to do business in the State, the motion should be granted. But it was said that "the affidavits of complainant are mainly on information and belief, but annexed to them is a letter, the genuineness of which is not questioned, which bears date March 15, 1901, (two months and a half after the alleged cessation of business at Niagara Falls,) and signed by the treasurer of the defendant corporation, in which he speaks of the plant at Niagara Falls as still being operated by the defendant. Under these circumstances the court would not be warranted in granting this motion, in view of the conflict of fact. If, however, the defendant feels assured that the apparent discrepancy can be explained, and is willing to pay the expenses of a reference, it may be sent to a master to take testimony and report to the court whether or not at the time of the service of the summons the defendant corporation was doing business within this State."


Free PDF Download "Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works" Online ePub Kindle