
    U. T. Hungerford Brass and Copper Company, Respondent, v. Walker B. Hines, as Director-General of the United States Railroad Administration, Appellant.
    
      Practice — service of summons upon agent designated under section 206a of Transportation Act to accept service in action against railroad company — motion to vacate service denied — motion 'to amend summons properly granted.
    
    
      Hungerford Brass & Copper Co. v. Hines, 205 App. Div. 873, affirmed.
    (Argued April 19, 1923;
    decided May 8, 1923.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 2, 1923, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by defendant to vacate service of the summons as resettled by an order of said court. Also, appeal, by permission, from an order of said Appellate Division in the first judicial department, entered February 2, 1923, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting plaintiff’s motion to amend said summons. Upon the first appeal the following question was certified; “ Should the service of a summons on February 28, 1922, upon Frank E. Hall, the designated agent of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, a foreign corporation and authorized by James C. Davis, the agent designated by the president, under section 206a of the Transportation Act of 1920, to accept service, in an action entitled: ‘ U. T. Hunger-ford Brass & Copper Company against Walker B. Hines, as Director-General of the United States Railroad Administration, defendant,’ be vacated and set aside? ” Upon the second appeal the following question was certified: “ In an action begun by the service of a summons on February 28, 1922, the action being entitled: ‘ U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Company, against Walker B. Hines, as Director-General of the United States Railroad Administration, defendant,’ the summons having been served on Frank E. Hall, who was authorized by James C. Davis, the agent designated by the president under section 206a of the Transportation Act of 1920, to accept service, should a motion made by plaintiff to amend the summons to read: ‘ U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Company, against James C. Davis, Director-General of Railroads, as Agent under Section 206 of the Transportation Act of 1920, defendant,’ be granted? ”
    
      Edward B. Brumley and William L. Barnett for appellant.
    
      James H. Oarmesey and Thomas L. Green for respondent.
   Order affirming order denying motion to vacate service of summons affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative. Order affirming order granting motion to amend summons affirmed, without costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Not voting: His cock, Ch. J.  