of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Pursuant to Rule 4(c), in order for Allsopp to have been properly served, the process server had to (1) serve him in person, (2) leave the process papers at his “dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age or discretion” residing there with him, or (3) deliver the process papers to a person authorized by appointment or by law to receive service for him. In the present case, the process server testified that, when Davis opened the door, he asked if Allsopp resided there and Davis responded that Allsopp did. The process server stated that he could see a man he ss.2008) (<HOLDING>). Here, service of process was not attempted
holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service holding that service was sufficient where process server dropped papers in the front yard after defendant refused to accept them and attempted to walk away holding that a clerical employee was not an agent authorized to accept service of process for the corporation holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding service on corporation proper where process server went to corporate defendants headquarters identified himself to an employee of corporate defendant and stated that he was there to serve legal papers and the employee then directed him to another employee who accepted service even though neither employee was authorized to accept service and neither represented that she was in fact so authorized because both were obviously corporate defendant employees and the employee redelivered the summons and complaint to an employee authorized to accept service on the same date