
    Charles H. Goldberg, Respondent, v. Clarence M. Fowler, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    October, 1899.)
    Jurisdiction — Service of summons, on the attorney for the defendant, insufficient.
    A return showing that a summons and complaint was served upon the attorney for the defendant, not followed by any appearance of or for the defendant on the return day, confers no jurisdiction.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, by default, in the Municipal Court, first district, borough of Manhattan.
    Harris & Corwin, for appellant.
    David A. Sullivan, for respondent.
   Freedman, P. J.

The return shows that the summons and complaint in this action was served upon J. H. Corwin, attorney for Clarence M. Fowler, the defendant therein named.” Upon the return day of the summons no one appeared for the defendant, and judgment was taken against him by default.

The court below acquired no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by the service of the summons upon his attorney, and, as the defendant has in no manner voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court, the judgment rendered against him is void and must be reversed.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs to appellant.  