Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED SHOE MACH. CORP. v. BECKER

January 20, 1943

UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION
v.
BECKER et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CAMPBELL

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This case comes before the Court on motions made on behalf of the persons named as defendants, represented by Stull & Gore, Esqs., on the return of an order to show cause, as follows:

For an order quashing, vacating and setting aside the service of the summons and complaint herein upon the defendants The Becker Corporation and Esther Becker as administratrix of the goods, chattels and credits which were of Max Becker, and dismissing the complaint herein as against said defendants and the defendant Esther Becker individually, who are appearing specially herein for the purpose upon the following grounds:

 1. That this Court does not have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant The Becker Corporation, a Connecticut corporation, not authorized to or doing business in the State of New York.

 2. That the Court does not have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant Esther Becker, as administratrix of the goods, chattels and credits which were of Max Becker.

 3. That the Court does not have jurisdiction of the necessary parties defendant to this action.

 4. That the Court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action.

 5. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for an amount necessary to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.

 6. That the complaint does not state a claim against defendants upon which relief can be granted.

 7. That the complaint does not comply with Rule 8(e) (1), in that it is not simple, concise and direct; it does not plead ultimate facts, but conclusions of law; it pleads evidentiary, immaterial and irrelevant matter; and in that it fails to separately state and number its causes of action.

 8. That as of right or in the exercise of a sound discretion, this Court should not entertain jurisdiction of this cause.

 Consideration of the several grounds stated leads me to the following conclusions.

 The Becker Corporation was a Connecticut corporation. It was not doing any business at the time, but was practically liquidated, it did not have any office or place of business in the State of New York, was not authorized to do business in the State of New York, and at the time of such attempted service, or of the commencement of this action, the defendant was not in the State of New York engaged in the business of said corporation at said time, or times, and that the service on Esther Becker as a director of the corporation was not good service on the corporation. The attempted service of the summons and complaint upon The Becker Corporation should be quashed, vacated and set aside.

 This Court has jurisdiction of the person of the defendant Esther Becker as administratrix of the goods, chattels and credits which were of Max Becker. While it is true that in general an administratrix is personally liable for torts committed while acting as administratrix and not the estate, the rule is different where the estate receives the property, as in that case the estate is not depleted by the acts of the Administratrix, but is increased by the property received, and the estate is liable to the extent of the property received. DeValengin's Adm'rs v. Duffy, 14 Pet. 282, 290, 291, 10 L. Ed. 457; 9 Carmody on New York Practice, Section 343; Moran v. Moradministratrix of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.