From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenberg Co. v. Curtis Brown Co.

U.S.
Jan 2, 1923
260 U.S. 516 (1923)

Summary

holding that visits by out-of-state defendant to forum state to purchase "a large part of the merchandise" which was sold in defendant's out-of-state small clothing store were of no "legal significance" in the personal jurisdiction analysis

Summary of this case from Pease v. Kelly Aerospace, Inc.

Opinion

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 102.

Argued November 16, 1922. Decided January 2, 1923.

1. An order of the District Court quashing the summons in an action against a foreign corporation upon the ground that the defendant was not found in the State is in effect a final judgment, reviewable here under Jud. Code, § 238. P. 517. 2. Purchases of goods by a foreign corporation for sale at its domicile, and visits by its officers on business related to such purchases, are not enough to warrant the inference that it is present within the jurisdiction of the State where such purchases and visits are made; and service of summons on its president while temporarily in that State on such business is, therefore, void. P. 517. 3. The fact that the cause of action arose in the State of suit will not confer jurisdiction of a foreign corporation not found there. P. 518. 285 F. 879, affirmed.

ERROR to a judgment of the District Court quashing the summons, for want of jurisdiction, in an action against a foreign corporation.

Mr. George H. Harris for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Jacob H. Corn, with whom Mr. Isaac Siegel was on the brief, for defendant in error.


Rosenberg Bros. Company, Inc., a New York corporation, brought this suit in the Supreme Court of that State against Curtis Brown Company, an Oklahoma corporation. The only service of process made was by delivery of a summons to defendant's president while he was temporarily in New York. Defendant appeared specially; moved to quash the summons on the ground that the corporation was not found within the State; and, after evidence was taken but before hearing on the motion, removed the case to the federal court for the Western District of New York. There, the motion to quash was granted, upon the ground that the defendant was not amenable to the process of the state court at the time of the service of the summons. A writ of error was sued out under § 238 of the Judicial Code; and the question of jurisdiction was duly certified. The order entered below, although in form an order to quash the summons and not a dismissal of the suit, is a final judgment; and the case is properly here. Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518; Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U.S. 406. Compare The Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216, 217.

The sole question for decision is whether, at the time of the service of process, defendant was doing business within the State of New York in such manner and to such extent as to warrant the inference that it was present there. Philadelphia Reading Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U.S. 264, 265. The District Court found that it was not. That decision was clearly correct. The Curtis Brown Company is a small retail dealer in men's clothing and furnishings at Tulsa, Oklahoma. It never applied, under the foreign corporation laws, for a license to do business in New York; nor did it at any time authorize suit to be brought against it there. It never had an established place of business in New York; nor did it, without having such established place, regularly carry on business there. It had no property in New York; and had no officer, agent or stockholder resident there. Its only connection with New York appears to have been the purchase there from time to time of a large part of the merchandise to be sold at its store in Tulsa. The purchases were made, sometimes by correspondence, sometimes through visits to New York of one of its officers. Whether, at the time its president was served with process, he was in New York on business or for pleasure; whether he was then authorized to transact any business there; and to what extent he did transact business while there, are questions on which much evidence was introduced; and some of it is conflicting. But the issues so raised are not of legal significance. The only business alleged to have been transacted by the company in New York, either then or theretofore, related to such purchases of goods by officers of a foreign corporation. Visits on such business, even if occurring at regular intervals, would not warrant the inference that the corporation was present within the jurisdiction of the State. Compare International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579; People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79. And as it was not found there, the fact that the alleged cause of action arose in New York is immaterial. Compare Chipman, Limited v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co., 251 U.S. 373. 379.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Rosenberg Co. v. Curtis Brown Co.

U.S.
Jan 2, 1923
260 U.S. 516 (1923)

holding that visits by out-of-state defendant to forum state to purchase "a large part of the merchandise" which was sold in defendant's out-of-state small clothing store were of no "legal significance" in the personal jurisdiction analysis

Summary of this case from Pease v. Kelly Aerospace, Inc.

holding that defendant corporation's visits to forum to purchase merchandise, "even if occurring at regular intervals, would not warrant the inference that the corporation was present within the jurisdiction of the [forum] State"

Summary of this case from Nikbin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

finding visits incident to a purchasing arrangement with wholesalers unsupportive of an inference of presence within the forum state

Summary of this case from Fisher v. Teva PFC

finding no jurisdiction where defendant's contacts with state consisted of periodic purchases of large quantities of its retail stock from firms in the forum state and regular business trips to the forum state in connection to those purchases

Summary of this case from Butler v. Beer Across Am.

finding that a clothing retailer in Tulsa, Oklahoma, who purchased a substantial portion of its merchandise from New York wholesalers to sell in its Tulsa store was not subject to jurisdiction in New York

Summary of this case from Dunham v. Hunt Midwest Entertainment

concluding that no jurisdiction existed over a defendant that frequently entered the forum merely to purchase goods

Summary of this case from In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust

concluding that no jurisdiction existed over a defendant that frequently entered the forum merely to purchase goods

Summary of this case from In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation

In Rosenberg, the Court held that a company's purchases within a State, even when combined with related trips to the State by company officials, would not allow the courts of that State to assert general jurisdiction over all claims against the nonresident corporate defendant making those purchases.

Summary of this case from Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

quashing summons as final judgment

Summary of this case from Paliaga v. Luckenbach Steamship Company

In Rosenberg Bros. Co., Inc., v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 517, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372, it was squarely held that an order quashing service on the defendant was a final appealable order.

Summary of this case from Moss v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.

In Rosenberg Bros., the Supreme Court held that there was no personal jurisdiction over a company where the company's only connection with the state was from "purchases there from time to time of a large part of the merchandise to be sold at its store in [another state]."

Summary of this case from J Squared Inc. v. Furniture by Thurston, Inc., (S.D.Ind. 2003)

In Rosenberg, the defendant, a small retailer from Oklahoma travelled periodically to New York to purchase large portions of the merchandise that he sold in his store in Oklahoma.

Summary of this case from L.H. Carbide Corp. v. Piece Maker Co., (N.D.Ind. 1994)

In Rosenberg Bros. Co. v. Curtis Brown Co. 260 U.S. 516, 67 L. ed. 372, the service of summons was quashed by the trial court on the ground that the defendant was a foreign corporation not subject to suit in the State where the action was brought and the service had.

Summary of this case from Brauer Supply Co. v. Truck Co.

In Rosenberg Bros. Co., Inc., v. Curtis Brown Co., reported in 260 U.S. 516, 43 S.Ct., 170, 171, 67 L.Ed., 372, it appears that plaintiffs in error were merchants in Tulsa, Okla.; its president went to New York City to buy goods for its shop in Tulsa, and while there was served with summons in a suit by Curtis Brown Company.

Summary of this case from Dyar v. Georgia Power Co.

In Rosenberg Bros. Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516 (1923), the United States Supreme Court indicated that it was not.

Summary of this case from Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. v. Queen's Flowers Corp.

In Rosenberg, the defendant was a small Oklahoma men's clothing retailer which purchased a large portion of its merchandise from New York wholesalers.

Summary of this case from Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. v. Queen's Flowers Corp.

In Rosenberg, the Oklahoma defendant's only connection with the forum state, New York, was the periodic purchase of goods from New York wholesalers. Focusing on that precedent, defendants contend that if purchases alone are not enough, a fortiori, a guaranty for such purchases cannot be a basis for jurisdiction.

Summary of this case from Nike, Inc. v. Spencer
Case details for

Rosenberg Co. v. Curtis Brown Co.

Case Details

Full title:ROSENBERG BROS. COMPANY, INC. v . CURTIS BROWN COMPANY

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 2, 1923

Citations

260 U.S. 516 (1923)
43 S. Ct. 170

Citing Cases

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

Nor were petitioner's purchases of helicopters and equipment from the Texas manufacturer and the related…

Ford Motor Co. v. Hall Auto Co.

Cowikee Mills v. Ga.-Ala. Power Co., 216 Ala. 221, 113 So. 4; Philadelphia R. R. Co. v. McKibbin, 37 S.Ct.…