Saturday, December 28, 2013

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. case brief

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. case brief summary
342 U.S. 437 (1952)

CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner appealed the order of the Supreme Court of Ohio sustaining respondent foreign corporation's motion to quash service for petitioner's cause of action that did not arise within the state and did not relate to respondent's activities there.

CASE FACTS
Petitioner, a nonresident of Ohio, filed suit against respondents, including respondent incorporated foreign mining company. The mining company had been carrying on a limited but continuous and systematic part of its general business in the state . Petitioner's cause of action did not arise in Ohio and did not relate to the company's activities there.

ISSUE
Whether the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV precluded Ohio from subjecting a foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of its courts in an action in personam.

DISCUSSION

  • The U.S. Supreme Court held that the company's continuous and systematic in-state activities, including directors' meetings, business correspondence, banking stock transfers, and payment of salaries, were enough to make it fair and reasonable to subject the company to proceedings in personam, at least insofar as the proceedings sought to enforce causes of action related to those very activities or to other activities within the state. 
  • As such, it did not violate federal due process for Ohio to either take or decline jurisdiction of the company.

CONCLUSION
The Court vacated and remanded, holding that it did not violate federal due process for the state either to take or to decline jurisdiction in the proceeding since the company's continuous and systematic carrying of business made it fair and reasonable to subject the company to the proceedings.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.