Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: The person upon whom service of the summons was made was none of the persons mentioned in subdivision 8 of section 228 of the Civil Practice Act upon whom service on a corporation may be made. He was not a clerk to the corporation. The word "clerk" as used in the foregoing section "must mean some general officer of the corporation, and not any person who happens to hold a clerical position with it." ( Erie R.R. Co. v. Van Allen, 76 N.J. Law, 119, 121; 69 A. 484; Carroll v. N.Y., N.H. Hartford R.R. Co., 65 N.J. Law, 124; 46 A. 708; Chambers Bros. Co. v. King Wrought Iron Bridge Manufactory, 16 Kan. 270, 276.) No jurisdiction was acquired by the attempted service ( Winslow v. Staten Island R.T.R.R. Co., 51 Hun, 298, 300), and the service was void. ( Kramer v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 132 App. Div. 415, 416; appeal dismissed, 196 N.Y. 532.) "But the validity of the service does not depend upon what is done with the summons after the service is made." ( Beck v. North P. P. Co., 159 App. Div. 418, 420.) The service was ineffectual for any purpose. ( Eisenhofer v. New Yorker Zeitung Pub. Co., 91 App. Div. 94.) Service of the summons was properly vacated. All concur. (The order vacates an attempted service of the summons.)