M. WHARTON YOUNG, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT PICK HOTELS, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that service of process was improper because the individual served was not an employee or agent of the defendant corporation.
Plaintiff attempted to serve a complaint on Albert Pick Hotels by serving the Assistant Manager of the Pick-Lee House, one of the hotels in the chain.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corporate Agency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The question is whether the District Court was right in quashing attempted service of a complaint and summons upon Albert Pick Hotels, defendant, appellee in this court. The complaint involved conduct allegedly injurious to plaintiff, appellant, attributed to the Pick-Congress Hotel, located in Chicago. Service was attempted upon the Assistant Manager of the Pick-Lee House, located in Washington, one of a chain of hotels known as the Albert Pick Hotels, to which the Pick-Congress Hotel also belonged. The defendant Albert Pick Hotels is a management corporation, separate in corporate status from the several corporations operating the individual hotels in the chain.
Defendant corporation solicits and confirms reservations for hotels in the chain and maintains an office in the Pick-Lee House in Washington. Though we therefore assume arguendo that defendant could be served with process in this juris diction,1 the Assistant Manager of Pick-Lee House, the person attempted to be served, was not an employee of defendant; nor does the evidence show that he or the Pick-Lee House was an agent of defendant upon whom service binding upon defendant could be made.
Affirmed.
. A local advertisement introduced in evidence following our remand when the case was here before, Young v. Albert Pick Hotels, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 400, 320 F. 2d 719, gives some support to this position.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gottlieb v. Sandia Am. Corp. (formerly known as Sandia Am. Dev. Corporation), 452 F.2d 510 (3d Cir. 1971)
-
Grantham v. Challenge-Cook Bros., 420 F.2d 1182 (7th Cir. 1969)
-
Young v. Pick Hotels-Washington Corp., 420 F.2d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
Authorities Cited
- Young v. Albert Pick Hotels, 320 F.2d 719 (D.C. Cir. 1963)