Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Construction Co.
Citations
- 257 U.S. 213
- 42 S. Ct. 84
- 66 L. Ed. 201
- 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1331
Syllabus
<p>1. A judgment of the District Court dismissing an action upon the ' ground that the process served was void and gave no jurisdiction over the defendant’s person, is reviewable directly here. P. 214.</p> <p>2. The purpose of a state law requiring foreign corporations to appoint local agents upon whom process may be served is primarily to secure local jurisdiction in respect of business transacted within the State, and the scope of the agency should not be extended further by implication unless so construed by the state Supreme Court. P.215. _</p> <p>3. In an action in Ohio by an Ohio corporation against a Missouri corporation, upon a contract to be performed in Michigan; negotiated by correspondence and consummated (it seems) in Illinois,- it appeared that the defendant had appointed an agent in Ohio, upon whom process might be served (Ohio Gen. Code, § 179) and was engaged in building operations there when the contract was made, but, before the suit, had ceased such operations and withdrawn its property and men and thereafter it merely filed an annual report in complianee with Ohio Gen. Code, § 5499, after service in the action was made on the agent. Held, that the service was void. Chipman, Ltd. v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co., 251 TJ. S. 373.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that “[u]nless the state law either expressly or by local construction gives to the appointment a larger scope, we should not construe it to extend to suits in respect of business transacted by the foreign corporation elsewhere”
- finding no jurisdiction over a foreign corpora- tion when the compliance statute was limited to “liability incurred within the State,” but noting that “the state law [could] either expressly or by local construction give[] to the appointment a larger scope”
- “The purpose in requiring the appointment of such an agent is primarily to secure local jurisdiction in respect of business transacted within the State.” (emphasis added)
- “The purpose in requiring the appointment of such an agent is primarily 8 to secure local jurisdiction in respect of business transacted within the State.” 9 (emphasis added)
- “Of course when a foreign corporation appoints one as required by statute it takes the risk of the construction that will be put upon the statute and the scope of the agency by the State Court.”
- “Unless the state law either expressly or by local construction gives to the appointment a larger scope, we should not construe it to extend to suits in respect of business transacted by the foreign corporation elsewhere”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Holmes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.