State ex rel. Eau Claire Dells Improvement Co.v. Dist. Court for Ramsey Cnty., in the 2nd Judicial Dist.

• Citation: 26 Minn. 233,2 N.W. 698
• Parties: THE STATE OF MINNESOTA EX REL. THE EAU CLAIRE DELLS IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, RELATOR, v THE DISTRICT COURT FOR RAMSEY COUNTY, IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
• Decision Date: 18 October 1879
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

26 Minn. 233

2 N.W. 698

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA EX REL. THE EAU CLAIRE DELLS IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, RELATOR,vTHE DISTRICT COURT FOR RAMSEY COUNTY, IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed October 18, 1879.

Prohibition to the district court of Ramsey county. Davis, O'Brien & Wilson and L. M. Vilas, for relator.

Geo. L. & Chas. E. Otis, for respondents.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The question sought to be raised in this proceeding is, can the courts of this state acquire jurisdiction over the person of a corporation created under the laws of another state, where the cause of action arose out of this state, and the corporation has no property therein, and never transacted any business, nor had any office, or agency, or officer, or agent therein, and the only ground for asserting such jurisdiction is that the summons was served within the state upon an officer of the corporation who was in the state, not upon any business, nor by any authority of the corporation, but solely in a private capacity, and for his own private business or pleasure?

The relator first raised the question in the district court by a motion upon affidavits showing the facts to set aside such a service of the summons, which motion being denied it procured this writ of prohibition to issue.

We have very little doubt that if the question were properly before us for decision we should sustain the objection to the jurisdiction.

The facts in Guernsey v. American Insurance Co. 13 Minn. 278, were sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction, but the reasoning of the court goes further than we can approve. But the writ of prohibition is not the proper remedy.

In The State ex rel. Lasher v. The Municipal Court of St. Paul, [2 N. W. REP. 166,(Minn. 116,)]where it was alleged that matters had arisen in the course of an action which ousted the jurisdiction of the municipal court, this court laid down the rule “that in an action, proceeding in the ordinary way by summons, pleadings, trial, judgment, etc., where the cause of action is within the jurisdiction of the court, and in the course of the action any matter arises or is presented to the court which requires it to decide upon its jurisdiction, an error in such decision ought to be corrected upon review; and where in such case an adequate mode of review is open to the party, the writ of prohibition ought not to issue.

This rule is just as applicable to an action where it is alleged that there...