
    Herman Blume and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Trade Name and Style of Blume & Mittler, Respondents, v. The A. Marcus Company, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    March 25, 1927.
    Corporations- — -foreign corporations — defendant is Maryland corporation and had neither its place of business nor any of its property in this State — service of summons on officer in this State for part of day invalid.
    The service of a summons on one of defendant’s officers while in this State for part of a day was invalid, where it appears that defendant is a Maryland corporation having its place of business m that State and not only is unauthorized to do business in New York but also has no place of business in this State and no property here.
    Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District, denying defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside the service of the summons.
    
      Samuel Sturtz, for the appellant.
    
      Levy & Hartman [Harry Hartman of counsel], for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The defendant corporation, which was organized under the laws of Maryland and had its place of business in Baltimore, was not authorized to do business in New York and had no place of business in this State and no property here. It made the bulk of its purchases through correspondence or by being visited by traveling salesmen employed by other concerns. Occasionally some of its officers made purchases in New York. Its name did not appear in any New York telephone book or directory. One of its officers while in New York for part of a day was served with a summons, and it was error to deny the motion to vacate such service.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion to set aside service of summons granted, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Lydon, Levy and Crain, JJ.  