Schering Corporation, Appellant v. Philip Cotlow, Appellee (Arizona 1963)

Summary

The court held that personal service on Schering's Arizona sales representative was valid because his duties and status made him a managing or general agent and made actual notice reasonably certain. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default because Schering failed to show excusable neglect during the time available to respond. The court did not reach whether Schering had a meritorious defense because excusable neglect was a prerequisite to that inquiry.

Holding

Validity of service of process. Service on Vaterlaus was valid because his substantial sales responsibilities, territory-wide authority over normal sales functions, corporate communications, and position within Schering's business made him a managing or general agent and made it reasonably certain that Schering would receive actual notice.

Setting aside the default and default judgment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Schering had not shown excusable neglect and in refusing to set aside the default and judgment.

Schering Corporation, Appellant v. Philip Cotlow, Appellee

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by