eral agent, is not a good service under such a statute; for he is not a general agent within its meaning.1 § 7515. Service upon Secretary, or Secretary and Treasurer. — In the absence of a statute prescribing the officer upon whom service can be made, a service upon the secretary, when it cannot be had upon the chief managing officer or agent, will be deemed a good service, under the principles of the common law already stated. A person holding at the same time the office of secretary and treasurer, will be regarded, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as a proper person on whom service of process in an action against the company may be had.' It is, of course, sufficient that the secretary be such de facto. The fact that he may not be such de jure, by reason of some disqualification, as by reason of his permanent residence in another State, does not invalidate a service of process upon him, in an action against the corporation, where there is a statute authorizing service upon its secretary.1 87516. Service upon Any Agent or Employé. Some statutes have gone so far as to authorize the service of process against corporations upon any one of their agents or employés,but generally with the qualification that the 1 Great Western Min. Co. v. Woodmas &c. Co., 12 Colo. 46; 8. c. 13 Am. St. Rep. 204: 20 Pac. Rep. 771. A statute of Iowa provides that in suits against corporations, service may be made on any agent employed in the general management of its business. Code of Iowa, § 2612. A socalled recording agent of an insurance company, who has nothing to do with the business of the company except to write its policies, and to give attention to such policies as he has issued, and to look after the interests of the company in connection with the property insured by him, is not an agent in the general management of its business, within the meaning of this statute. This was so held in State Ins. Co. v. Granger, 62 Iowa, 272, where it was decided that there was no service to give the court jurisdiction. A service was also had on a "recording agent "; but it was not claimed that he was a general managing agent, within the meaning of the statute. Ante, §§ 4696, 5195; Heltzell v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 77 Mo. 315, 317. As to service on secretary under Alabama statute, - see Talladega Ins. Co. v. Woodward, 44 Ala. 287. State v. Felton, 52 N. J. L. 161; 8. c. 19 Atl. Rep. 123. McCall v. Byram Man. Co., 6 Conn. 428; ante, § 3893, et seq. principal officer shall be served if he reside within the jurisdiction. Thus, a statute of Illinois provided that when any suit should be brought against any incorporated company, process should be served upon the president of such company, if he reside in the county within which such suit is brought, and if he be absent from the county or shall not reside in the county, then the summons shall be served by the proper officer, by leaving a copy thereof with the clerk, cashier, secretary, engineer, conductor, or any agent of such company, found in the county, at least five days before the trial, if before a justice of the peace, and at least ten days, where the suit is brought in the Circuit Court. In the face of this statute, it was held no objection that service of a summons had not been made upon the agent of a corporation; since, under the statute, service upon any of its agents was sufficient, and if the agent failed to notify the company, it was a misfortune occasioned by the neglect of its own employé for which the plaintiff was not accountable. Under a statute similar to the foregoing, prescribing service upon the chief officers if they reside within the county, and if not, on certain subordinate officers or agents, it is necessary, to make a service on a special officer or agent good, for the return to show that none of the chief officers named in the statute could be found. - 7517. Service on Station Agents of Railway Companies. — In many States service may be had upon the station agents of railway companies. If two railway companies have 1 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Fell, 22 Ill. 333. Fee v. Big Sand Iron Co., 13 Ohio St. 563. Under a statute of Virginia (Va. Acts 1883-4, p. 701), declaring that if the case be against some other corporation than a city, town, or bank of circulation, incorporated in that State, or elsewhere, transacting business in that State, service may be made on any agent or any person declared by the laws of that State to be an agent of such corporation, service on the vice-president and general superintendent of a railroad company, in the absence of the president, is sufficient. Norfolk &c. R. Co. v. Cottrell, 83 Va. 512; s. c. 31 Am. & Eng. Rail. Cas. 235; 3 S. E. Rep. 123; 2 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 329. State v. Hannibal &c. R. Co., 51 Mo. 532; Central &c. R. Co. v. Morris, 68 Tex. 49; s. c. 3 S. W. Rep. 457. the same local agent, and a suit is brought against both companies, and service is had upon the agent, two copies of the citation should, in Texas, be left with the agent, one for each defendant. If the defendant railway company has leased its line to another company, service may be perfected, in Georgia, by sending a letter containing the process to the president of the lessor company, and by serving the process upon the station agent of the lessee company. If the road is in the hands of a Federal court receiver, in Missouri, a station agent will be deemed an agent of the receiver, so that service of process on him will be good, where the receiver is a non-resident, such service being good under the statute law in actions against railroad companies. But to remove any doubt, the court, whose officer the receiver is, will make a rule that such service shall be considered good. Where there is a statute allowing service upon the station agents of railway companies in ordinary cases, and there is also a special statute giving an action for a penalty against such companies before justices of the peace, which special statute provides that the suit may be commenced by serving the summons on any director, it is held that the mode of service, made permissive in the special statute, is not to be deemed exclusive, and that the word "may" is not to be read as meaning "shall"; so that a service on a station agent is good.* § 7518. Service upon Person having Property in Charge. Where the statute provides that a defendant corporation may be summoned by service upon its acknowledged agent within the Territory, or upon any person in its employ or who has any of its property in charge, where no such agent is found, service upon its attorney, who also has some of its property in charge, is valid. 1 Central &c. R. Co. v. Morris, 68 Tex. 49; 8. c. 3 S. W. Rep. 457. Atlanta &c. R. Co. v. Harrison, 76 Ga. 757. 'Central Trust Co. v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 426. State v. Hannibal &c. R. Co., 51 Mo. 532. • Utah Comp. Laws, 1888, § 3208. Saunders v. Sioux City Nursery & S. Co., 6 Utah, 431; s. c. 24 Pac. Rep. 532. § 7519. Service on Any Agent in Actions Growing out of the Business of his Agency. - Statutes are found, like the following, in Iowa: "Where a corporation, company, or individual, has, for the transaction of any business, an office or agency in any county other than that in which the principal resides, service may be made on any agent or clerk employed in such office or agency, in all actions growing out of or connected with the business of that office or agency." "The statutory thought is that, if service on the principal is dispensed with, it should be made upon some one connected with the business out of which it grew. And this is reasonable. Such a person would be much more likely to inform his principal of the pendency of the action than one who knew nothing about the business and was not interested therein." This statute does not warrant the service of notice upon one agent, in an action growing out of the business of another and former agent who conducted a different office in the same town; and a notice so served will not give the court jurisdiction. The court reasoned that if an agent is removed, or ceases to act, and his agency is for a time closed, and afterwards another agent is appointed, and thereafter there is such an office or agency, the person employed in the latter cannot be legally served with notice in an action growing out of the business done by the former agent. 8 7520. Service upon a Railway Section Foreman. Under a statute requiring a railway company to designate in each county some officer of the company or person upon whom process against it may be served, and providing that, in the absence of such designation, process may be served upon certain named officers and agents, among them a "local superintendent of repairs," a service upon a section foreman, under the above designation, will be good where the company has not designated the person as required by the statute.2 § 7521. Service upon Stockholders. As a stockholder is not, as such, an agent of the corporation,' he is not a proper person on whom process may be served. Even where the proprietors of common land had been incorporated, under a system prevalent in the earlier days in New England, service of summons on an individual member of such a corporation was not sufficient, and the member might appear and plead want of notice to the corporation. Statutes have been enacted in some States, authorizing service of process upon foreign corporations by delivering the writ to any stockholder, when the corporation has no officer or agent within the State. A stockholder remains such, for the purpose of process against the company being served upon him, although he has made a sham transfer of his shares to defeat the jurisdiction thus sought to be acquired,—as where he has gratuitously transferred his shares to trustees whose names he does not know, for some unknown and undefined purpose, and at the same time has contributed fifty dollars to cover the expense of the transfer on the books of the corporation." 8 7522. Service upon the Cashier of a Bank. -The cashier of a bank sustains a relation to the corporation of such importance that the courts in many cases take judicial notice of the existence of his agency, and of his powers and duties. Beyond 1 Kan. Civ. Code, § 68 a. St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. DeFord, 38 Kan. 299; 8. c. 16 Pac. Rep. 442. 'Ante, §§ 1075, 3975, 5234. Rand v. Proprietors, 3 Day (Conn.), 441. § 40. Such as Colo. Code Civ. Proc., Colorado Iron Works v. Sierra Grande Min. Co., 15 Colo. 499; 8. c. 22 Am. St. Rep. 433; 25 Pac. Rep. 325; 9 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 113; 32 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 201. Compare ante, § 3255, et seq. 1 Ante, §§ 4741, 4789. |