
    Maria Ives, Resp’t, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed May 8, 1894.)
    
    Service—Corporation.
    A summons against a corporation may be served upon an agent who has entire superintendence, within a certain district, of its business.
    Appeal from a judgment of the county court affirming a judgment of a justice of the peace.
    
      John De Witt Pellz ( Wm. L. Learned, of counsel), for app’lt; Frederick A. Chew, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

We think that Corcoran was a managing agent for defendant, within the meaning of subdivision 8' of § 431 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He had the control, subject to the direction of the home office, of the district composing the cities of Troy and Lansingburgh, and vicinity, with 9 assistant superintendents and 62 subagents subject to his orders. In that district he had the entire superintendence, of all the defendant’s business. It has been well settled that subdivision 3 of § 431, supra, means, not “the,” but “a,” managing agent, and hence a corporation may have different agents in.different localities. Brayton v. N. Y., L. E. & W. Railroad Co., 72 Hun, 602, 603 ; 54 St. Rep. 763 ; Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 35 Hun, 369. We think that one having entire charge of defendant’s business and subagents over so large a territory as Corcoran did must be deemed a managing agent. That he was controlled in the discharge of his duties by the home office does not render him any less a managing agent. An agent is a person acting in behalf of another. He is supposed to carry out the directions of the principal. All his acts are deemed those of the party he represents. Therefore, Corcoran, although his acts were performed under the direction of defendant's officers at the home office, yet, as he, in his district, was the sole representative, and performed therein all its business, he was a managing agent, on whom services of process could be properly made. We think the remarks of Dwight, J., in Rochester, H. & L. R. Co. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 48 Hun, 190, 192 ; 15 St. Rep. 686, are applicable to this case, viz,: “All the servants ■of the company engaged in the promotion of the work in question were acting under his orders. The work was done under his personal supervision and direction. He was the managing agent of the defendant in respect to all matters local to the important division of which he was superintendent. * * * He was the officer who received from the chief authorities * * * all the general orders pertaining to the managment and operation of his division, and he must have been the officer chiefly relied upon to transmit to those authorities all information respecting its condition and requirements. He was the officer whose position, rank, and duties made it, in the language of the opinion in Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 35 Hun, 369 ; 99 N. Y. 679, 1 reasonably certain that the defendant will be appraised for the service made.’”

See, also, Barrett v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 31 St. Rep. 465; 10 N. Y. Supp. 138; Id., 138 N. Y. 491; 53 St. Rep. 86.

We therefore conclude that the judgment of the county court should be affirmed, with costa All concur.  