Aikmann v. Sanderson & Porter
| Decision Date | 04 November 1908 |
| Docket Number | 17,080 |
| Citation | 47 So. 600,122 La. 265 |
| Parties | AIKMANN v. SANDERSON & PORTER |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied November 30, 1908.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; John St. Paul Judge.
Action by S. E. Aikmann against Sanderson & Porter. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
George Montgomery and E. A. O'Sullivan, for appellant.
John May and Victor Leovy, for appellee.
Plaintiff brings this suit for the recovery of damages for the death of her minor son, resulting, as she alleges, from the negligence of Sanderson & Porter, by whom he was employed. She alleges that the firm is domiciled in New York, and is doing business in New Orleans, but does not state the character of the business, and she gives the names of the members of the firm, but does not give their residences. Citation was issued, addressed to "the firm of Sanderson & Porter, composed of Hobart Porter, Francis Blossom, Richard Talbot, and Richard S. Buck, individually and as members of the firm," and according to the transcript it was returned as having been served on the parties named "by leaving the same at their at time of service."
The parties named came into court, however, and excepted to the service on the grounds that Sanderson & Porter is not a commercial firm, but is an ordinary partnership, and has never been domiciled in Louisiana, and "that the said Winnfield H. Haller, on whom the service was made," was never authorized to represent them, or either of them, in receiving the same; and, after hearing, the exception was maintained (and the defendants relieved from answering until legally cited) by judgment rendered November 15, and signed December 3, 1907.
Thereafter another citation was issued, addressed "to the firm of Sanderson & Porter, composed," etc., which appears to have been mailed, with a copy of the petition, to New York City, and there served by some one (not an officer of the court) by delivering it to "H. Hobart Porter" at 52 William street, which, according to the return, is the office and domicile of the firm. And thereupon the defendants again excepted that there was no legal citation, nor due process of law, and the court again ruled in their favor, holding that the citation was insufficient and that they be relieved from answering until properly cited.
Judgment rendered February 12, 1908, and signed March 4, 1908.
Plaintiff has appealed from both judgments.
On the trial of the first exceptions, W. H. Haller was placed on the stand and testified that the firm of Sanderson & Porter is domiciled at 52 William street, New York City, and that three of the members live in the state, but not in the city, of New York, whilst the fourth lives in California; that he (Haller) has been representing the firm here with respect to such engineering business as they have instructed him to attend to, but that he is not, and has never been specially or in writing authorized to receive or accept service of citation for the firm or either of its members. Counsel for plaintiff offered a record in another suit (which has not been included in the transcript), and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davidson v. Henry L. Doherty & Co.
...S. W. 638. See further also Joel v. Bennett, 276 Ill. 537, 115 N. E. 5, 6;Frolich v. Hanson, 155 Tenn. 601, 296 S. W. 353;Aikmann v. Sanderson, 122 La. 265, 47 So. 600). In Murphy v. Development Co., 169 Iowa, 542, 151 N. W. 500, the constitutionality of the statute as there applied to an i......
-
Davidson v. Henry L. Doherty & Co.
...also Joel v. Bennett, (Ill.) 276 Ill. 537, 115 N.E. 5, 6; Frolich v. Hanson, (Tenn.) 155 Tenn. 601, 296 S.W. 353; Aikmann v. Sanderson, (La.) 122 La. 265, 47 So. 600. Murphy v. Development Co., 169 Iowa 542, 151 N.W. 500, the constitutionality of the statute as there applied to an individua......
-
Finklea Bros. v. Powell
...in another state. D'Arcy v. Ketchum et al., 11 How. 165; Hall v. Lanning, 91 U.S. 160; Flexner v. Farson, 248 U.S. 289; Aikmann v. Sanderson & Porter, 47 So. 600; Victor Cornille & DeBlonde v. R. G. Dun & Co., So. 855; Bolton v. Rouss, 80 So. 226; Underwood v. Brook Mays & Co., 146 So. 503.......
-
Victor Cornille & De Blonde v. R. G. Dun & Co.
... ... 1082] for failing to ... provide due process of law. See Aikmann v. Sanderson & ... Porter, 122 La. 265, 47 So. 600. The first section of ... the act declares: ... ...