Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co.
220 N.Y. 259
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiff resident brought suit against defendant Pennsylvania corporation. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (New York) affirmed an order denying a motion to set aside the service of a summons. The corporation appealed. The appellate division certified five questions to the court.
FACTS: The corporation maintained an office in New York under the direction of a sales agent, with eight salesmen and with clerical assistants, and through these agencies systematically and regularly solicited and obtained orders that resulted in continuous shipments from Pennsylvania to New York.
HOLDING:
In affirming, the court found that to do those things was to do business within the state in such a sense and in such a degree as to subject the corporation doing them to the jurisdiction of New York's courts.
ANALYSIS:
The corporation was in New York not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence and continuity. Furthermore, jurisdiction did not fail because the cause of action sued upon had no relation in its origin to the business transacted. It was not necessary to show that express authority to accept service was given to the corporation's agent. The corporation was in New York; it was there in the person of an agent of its own selection, and service upon him was service upon his principal. The evidence sustained the conclusion that the sales agent was a managing agent. Finally, the resident showed due diligence in the effort to make service on some superior officer.
RULES:
Where a defendant maintains an office in New York under the direction of a sales agent, with eight salesmen, and with clerical assistants, and through these agencies systematically and regularly solicits and obtains orders which result in continuous shipments from Pennsylvania to New York, to do these things is to do business within New York in such a sense and in such a degree as to subject the corporation doing them to the jurisdiction of New York's courts
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts. The court also answered the first, second, and third questions in the affirmative. The court answered the fifth question in the negative and stated that it was unnecessary to answer the fourth question.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
220 N.Y. 259
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiff resident brought suit against defendant Pennsylvania corporation. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (New York) affirmed an order denying a motion to set aside the service of a summons. The corporation appealed. The appellate division certified five questions to the court.
FACTS: The corporation maintained an office in New York under the direction of a sales agent, with eight salesmen and with clerical assistants, and through these agencies systematically and regularly solicited and obtained orders that resulted in continuous shipments from Pennsylvania to New York.
HOLDING:
In affirming, the court found that to do those things was to do business within the state in such a sense and in such a degree as to subject the corporation doing them to the jurisdiction of New York's courts.
ANALYSIS:
The corporation was in New York not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence and continuity. Furthermore, jurisdiction did not fail because the cause of action sued upon had no relation in its origin to the business transacted. It was not necessary to show that express authority to accept service was given to the corporation's agent. The corporation was in New York; it was there in the person of an agent of its own selection, and service upon him was service upon his principal. The evidence sustained the conclusion that the sales agent was a managing agent. Finally, the resident showed due diligence in the effort to make service on some superior officer.
RULES:
Where a defendant maintains an office in New York under the direction of a sales agent, with eight salesmen, and with clerical assistants, and through these agencies systematically and regularly solicits and obtains orders which result in continuous shipments from Pennsylvania to New York, to do these things is to do business within New York in such a sense and in such a degree as to subject the corporation doing them to the jurisdiction of New York's courts
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts. The court also answered the first, second, and third questions in the affirmative. The court answered the fifth question in the negative and stated that it was unnecessary to answer the fourth question.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment