| N.Y. App. Div. | Nov 22, 1939
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: The person upon whom service of the summons was made was none of the persons mentioned in subdivision 8 of section 228 of the Civil Practice Act upon whom service on a corporation may be made. He was not a clerk to the corporation. The word “ clerk ” as used in the foregoing section “ must mean some general officer of the corporation, and not any person who happens to hold a clerical position with it.” (Erie R. R. Co. v. Van Allen, 76 N. J. Law, 119, 121; 69 A. 484" date_filed="1908-02-24" court="N.J." case_name="Erie Railroad v. Van Allen">69 A. 484; Carroll v. N. Y., N. H. & Hartford R. R. Co., 65 N. J. Law, 124; 46 A. 708" date_filed="1900-06-11" court="N.J." case_name="Carroll v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad">46 A. 708; Chambers Bros. & Co. v. King Wrought Iron Bridge Manufactory, 16 Kan. 270" date_filed="1876-01-15" court="Kan." case_name="Chambers Bros. & Co. v. King Wrought-Iron Bridge Manufactory">16 Kan. 270, 276.) No jurisdiction was acquired by the attempted service (Winslow v. Staten Island R. T. R. R. Co., 51 Hun, 298" date_filed="1889-01-28" court="N.Y. Sup. Ct." case_name="Winslow v. Staten Island Rapid Transit Co.">51 Hun, 298, 300), and the service was void. (Kramer v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 132 A.D. 415" date_filed="1909-05-05" court="N.Y. App. Div." case_name="Kramer v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co.">132 App. Div. 415, 416; appeal dismissed, 196 N.Y. 532" date_filed="1909-10-26" court="NY" case_name="Kramer v. . Buffalo Union Furnace Company">196 N. Y. 532.) “But the validity of the service does not depend upon what is done with the summons after the service is made.” (Beck v. North P. & P. Co., 159 A.D. 418" date_filed="1913-12-05" court="N.Y. App. Div." case_name="Beck v. North Packing & Provision Co.">159 App. Div. 418, 420.) The service was ineffectual for any purpose. (Eisenhofer v. New Yorker Zeitung Pub. Co., 91 A.D. 94" date_filed="1904-02-15" court="N.Y. App. Div." case_name="Eisenhofer v. New Yorker Zeitung Publishing & Printing Co.">91 App. Div. 94.) Service of the summons was properly vacated. All concur. (The order vacates an attempted service of the summons.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.