Potter Stewart

“ Florence Weinberg was appointed the respondents' agent for the single purpose of receiving service of process. An agent with authority so limited can in no meaningful sense be deemed to have had an interest antagonistic to the respondents, since both the petitioner and the respondents had an equal interest in assuring that, in the event of litigation, the latter be given that adequate and timely notice which is a prerequisite to a valid judgment. ”

“ Upon motion of the respondents, the District Court quashed service of the summons and complaint, holding that, although Florence Weinberg had promptly notified the respondents of the service of process and mailed copies of the summons and complaint to them, the lease agreement itself had not explicitly required her to do so, and there was therefore a 'failure of the agency arrangement to achieve intrinsic and continuing reality.' 30 F.R.D. 3, 5. ”

“ The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that service of process upon an individual may be made 'by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment * * * to receive service of process.' [1] The petitioner is a corporation with its principal place of business in New York. It sued the respondents, residents of Michigan, in a New York federal court, claiming that the respondents had defaulted under a farm equipment lease. ”