
    Howard Y. Stillman, Respondent, v. The Associated Lace Makers’ Co., Appellant.
    (New York Common Pleas
    General Term,
    December, 1895.)
    Service of summons on the president de 'facto of a defendant corporation gives the court jurisdiction of such defendant corporation; and a subsequent adjudication in a proceeding to which plaintiff was not a party, that the person served was not president de jure, is ineffectual to divest or defeat jurisdiction.
    Appeal from order denying motion to vacate a judgment as having been entered without jurisdiction.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      
      Ronald K. Brown, for appellant.
    
      Howard ,H. Stillman, for respondent. ' '
   Pbyob, J.

The appeal is from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment on the ground that the person on whom process was served was not lawful president/of the defendant corporation. But, by .stipulation of the parties, that person was president defaoto; and in every jurisdiction, from the necessities of social order and distributive justice, the acts of an officer defacto are1 conclusive as to the public and third persons. Demarest v. Mayor, 147 N. Y. 203, 208 ; Lambert v. People, 76 id. 220, 231; Carpenter v. People, 64 id. 483; Dolan v. People, 64 id. 485; People ex rel. Sinkler v. Terry, 108 id. 1; Trustees of Vernon Society v. Hills, 6 Cow. 23; Charitable Assn. v. Baldwin, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 359; Hildredth v. McIntire, 19 Am. Dec. 66, note; Mallett v. Uncle Sam, etc., Co., 90 id. 484, note; Ward v. State, 91 id. 270, note; 5 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 94. lienee, by service on the president de facto, the court acquired jurisdiction .of the defendant (Berrian v. Methodist Society, 4 Abb. 424, 425 ; 6 Duer, 682); and upon the plainest prin-' ciples that jurisdiction was not divested or defeated by the subsequent order of the Supreme Court in a summary proceeding to Which this plaintiff was an entire stranger. Taylor v. Ranney, 4 Hill, 619, 623. Indeed, the • order does not determine that the president was not'an officer dé facto, but only that he was not sncli de jure. . ,

Were the motion under review an address to the favor of the court we should not be justified in admitting appellant to a defense’ after its deliberate refusal, to appear on the trial and , its long delay in applying for relief. It disclaims, however, the position of a suppliant, and stands defiantly Upon its supposed'right. In' default of such right we have no alternative' but to affirm the order.

‘Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Daia^ Ch. J., and Bo,okstavbb, J., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.  