Northern Central Railway Co. v. Rider

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Edward Rider, Jr., the appellee, having recovered a judgment, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, against Shealey & Sellers, caused a writ of attachment thereon to be issued on the 30th day of May 1874, returnable to the September Term 1874. On the 27th day of August 1874, the writ was returned as follows: “Laid in the hands of the Northern Central Rail R. Co., and servic'e admitted by the counsel, and summoned Co. as garnishee. Sam’l E. Butler, Shff.” ³¹ “May 30th, 1874.

Service admitted for the Northern Central R. R. Co., garnishee. “Bernard Carter, Atty. for “N. C. R. R. Co.” On the 14th day of September 1874, being the first day of the succeeding term, '■‘■condemnation nisi was entered, against the appellant as garnishee; and at the succeeding December Term on the 2nd day of January 1875 an order was passed by the Circuit Court in the case, reciting the order of condemnation nisi, and making the same final,” there being, as stated in the order, “ no appearance hy counsel and no pleas having been filed.” At the succeeding March Term, viz., on the 5th day of April 1875, the appellant by its counsel, filed a motion to strike out the judgment of condemnation, setting out the reasons in support of the motion, this was overruled; and this appeal is taken from the order refusing to strike out the judgment. One ground or reason alleged in support of the motion is “ that the attachment was not served on any officer of the corporation.” The mode required by law, of serving process upon a corporation, is that it shall be served on “the president, or any director or manager or other officer of such corporation.” 1 Code, Art. 75, sec. 99; Act of 1868, ch. 47, sec. 212. The sheriff states in his return that he laid the attachment “in the hands of the Northern Central Rail R. Co. and summoned Co. as garnishee.” It is very questionable whether this, standing alone, would be a sufficient return. It ought to appear affirmatively upon what person or pelsons the process was served, so that the Court could judge whether it was in law a valid service upon the company, otherwise that would be left to depend upon the judgment or discretion of the sheriff.

A return that process had been served on the corporation and the company sum ³² moned, does not show that the law has been complied with, the corporation is a mere entity existing in the mind, and can neither act itself, nor he affected by legal proceedings except by and through its authorized agents. The law having designated the character of the agents on whom process shall he served, in order to hind the