Kirby Carpenter Co. v. Trombley

• Decision Date: 10 July 1894
• Citation: 59 N.W. 809,101 Mich. 447
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: KIRBY CARPENTER CO. v. TROMBLEY.

59 N.W. 809

101 Mich. 447

KIRBY CARPENTER CO. v. TROMBLEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 10, 1894

Error to circuit court, Iron county; John W. Stone, Judge.

Replevin by the Kirby Carpenter Company against John Trombley. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Modified.

Julius J. Patek (Cahill & Ostrander, of counsel) for appellant.

B. J Brown, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

This case involves the validity of a judgment rendered against the present plaintiff as garnishee of one Dell Gaffany, the plaintiff's contention being that the return of the officer fails to show valid service of the garnishee process. The return of the officer shows a service upon the defendant foreign corporation "by delivering to Andy L. Robbins, the agent of said Kirby Carpenter Co. having charge of its affairs within said county of Iron, a copy thereof." The court below held that this return did not give the justice jurisdiction.

The question is raised as to whether the validity of this service is to be determined by the provisions of section 7086, How. St., or whether section 8055 covered the subject. We think it obvious that section 7086 has no application. That section is limited in its application to garnishment proceedings in which the original suit is instituted by attachment. This is made clear by the title to the original act, which is "An act to regulate proceedings in attachment against foreign corporations in certain cases." Section 8055 provides that service may be made upon the president, cashier, secretary, treasurer, general or special agent, superintendent, or other principal officer of such corporation. Does the return in question show service upon a general or special agent within the meaning of this section? We think the case is within the ruling in Railway Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich. 469. In that case it was said that the terms "general or special agent" are very indefinite, but employed, as they are here, in association with terms designating the principal officers of the corporation, they evidently intend agents who, either generally or in respect to some particular department of the corporate business, have a controlling authority, either general or special. They do not mean every man who is intrusted with a commission or an employment. It is true that the return in the present case shows that the agent Robbins has charge of the affairs of the company within said county of Iron; but it does not appear what was the nature of the affairs of the company...