## Facts

- A New York equipment lessor and Michigan farmers Steve and Mary Szukhent entered a written farm-equipment lease in 1961.
- The lease, in a numbered paragraph immediately above the lessees’ signatures and in the same typeface as the rest of the document, designated Florence Weinberg of Long Island City, New York, as the lessees’ agent “for the purpose of accepting service of any process within the State of New York.”
- The Szukhents had never met Weinberg and were not acquainted with her at the time of contracting.
- In 1962, the lessor sued the Szukhents in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging failure to make required periodic payments; diversity jurisdiction was not disputed.
- A U.S. Marshal served the summons and complaint on Weinberg in New York under the lease clause.
- On the day of service, Weinberg mailed the summons and complaint to the Szukhents with a letter explaining she had been served as their designated agent under the lease.
- The lessor also sent the Szukhents certified-mail notice of the service on Weinberg.
- The Szukhents moved to quash service, arguing Weinberg was not an “agent authorized by appointment” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether a lease provision designating a named person as an out-of-state defendant’s agent to accept service in New York creates an “agent authorized by appointment” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1).
2. Whether the designation is ineffective where the defendants did not know the agent, and the contract did not expressly require the agent to forward process, but the agent promptly did so and defendants received timely notice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment quashing service and remanded.
- The Court held that parties may contractually appoint an agent to receive service of process and may consent in advance to jurisdiction and methods of notice.
- The contractual designation, combined with Weinberg’s prompt acceptance and transmittal of the papers, satisfied Rule 4(d)(1)’s “agent authorized by appointment” requirement.
- Because the Szukhents actually received complete and timely notice, the Court found no need to reach broader due process questions.
- The Court rejected arguments that the agency was invalid because the Szukhents did not know Weinberg or because of her alleged connection to the lessor; the clause was not hidden and appeared directly above the signatures.

## Legal Principles

- Parties may agree by contract to submit to a particular forum’s jurisdiction, to specify a method of service, or to waive formal notice.
- An “agent authorized by appointment” for service under Rule 4(d)(1) may be created by contract.
- An agent’s prompt forwarding of served papers to the principal can validate the appointment for Rule 4(d)(1) purposes, even absent an explicit prior promise in the contract that the agent will forward process.
- Where defendants receive complete and timely notice through the appointed agent’s transmittal, enforcement of the service arrangement does not present a due process problem on the facts.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld service of process on a contractually designated agent under Rule 4(d)(1), concluding that the lease clause appointing a named New York agent—confirmed by the agent’s prompt transmittal and the defendants’ timely receipt of notice—was sufficient to subject the out-of-state lessees to the New York federal court’s jurisdiction.


National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311 (1964)