
    O’BRIEN v. SHAW’S FLAT AND TUOLUMNE CANAL CO.
    Where, in an action against an incorporated company, the return of the sheriff showed that he had served the summons in the action “ upon James Street, one of the proprietors of the companyMeld, that it was not sufficient evidence of service to give the Court jurisdiction, it not appearing that Street was president, or head of the corporation, or secretary, cashier, or managing agent thereof.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of Tuolumne.
    
      H. P. Barber for Appellant.
    
      L. Quint for Respondent.
   Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Terry, C. J., and Baldwin, J.,concurring.

The defendants arc an incorporated company, and the judgment in the present case was taken by default. The return of the sheriff shows that he served the summons “upon James Street, one of the proprietors of the company.” This is not sufficient evidence of service to give the Court jurisdiction. It does not appear that Street was “ president, or head of the corporation, or secretary, cashier, or managing agent thereof.” The summons might, with as much propriety, have been served upon any other stranger. (Practice Act, § 29; Aikin v. The Quartz Rock Mariposa Gold Mining Company, 6 Cal., 186.)

Judgment reversed.  