
    MULLINS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    May 14, 1894.)
    Summons—Service on Corporation—Managing Agent.
    A local superintendent of a life insurance company, who has “general supervision of the business” of his district, is a “managing agent,” on whom process against the company may be served, as provided by Code Civ. Proc. § 431. Dykman, X, dissenting.
    Appeal from Mt. Vernon city court.
    Action by Julia Mullins, as administratrix of Catherine Flynn, ■deceased, against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, on a policy of life insurance. The summons was served on one W. A. Skidmore, a local superintendent _ of defendant. From an order ■denying a motion to set aside the service of the summons, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
    Arnoux, Ritch & Woodford (Wm. H. Arnoux and John McG. Goodale, of counsel), for appellant.
    William Riley, for respondent.
   PRATT, J.

The justice had evidence before him which justified Mm in finding that Skidmore was a managing agent of defendant, .and his decision is binding upon us. We think that the duties of Skidmore, as set forth in the manual of defendant, quoted in appellant’s points, are sufficient to sustain the finding. “As superinv tendent, you have general supervision of the business of your district.” An agent who has general supervision of a business is a managing agent. ■ The district in which the powers are exercised may be limited, but the powers are general. Bain v. Insurance Co., 9 How. Pr. 448; Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 35 Hun, 370; Rochester, H. & L. R. Co. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 48 Hun, 190; Barrett v. Telegraph Co. (Sup.) 10 N. Y. Supp. 138; Brayton v. Railroad Co. (Sup.) 25 N. Y. Supp. 264,—are in point, and sustain this conclusion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

BROWN, P. J., concurs. DYKMAN, J., dissenting. See opinion in Stubing v. Insurance Co., infra  