People Tobacco Co v. American Tobacco Co 1918

Decision Date04 March 1918
Docket NumberNo. 124,124
Citation62 L.Ed. 587,38 S.Ct. 233,246 U.S. 79
PartiesPEOPLE'S TOBACCO CO., Limited, v. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. Argued Jan. 4-7, 1918
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from pages 79-80 intentionally omitted] Mr. Edwin T. Merrick, of New Orleans, La., for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Council on pages 80-82 intentionally omitted.]

Messrs. Junius Parker, of New York City, and George Denegre, Victor Leovy, and Henry H. Chaffe, all of New Orleans, La., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

On January 4, 1912, the People's Tobacco Company, Limited, began suit against the American Tobacco Company in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana to recover treble damages under section 7 of the Sherman Act of 1890 (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 210 [Comp. St. 1916, § 8829]). On January 5, 1912, service of process was made upon W. R. Irby as manager of the company. On January 16, 1912, the company filed exceptions to the service on the ground that it was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey; that it was not found within the Eastern District of Louisiana or in the State of Louisiana, and was not engaged in business there, nor had it an agent therein; that W. R. Irby, upon whom service had been attempted, was not an officer, agent, or employe of the defendant, the American Tobacco Company, or authorized to accept service of process upon it at that time. On January 25, 1912, service was made upon the Assistant Secretary of State of Louisiana. Exceptions to that service upon practically the same grounds were filed by the defendant company. A further service was undertaken on February 2, 1914, on the Secretary of State of Louisiana and like exceptions were filed by the defendant company to that service.

Testimony was taken and upon hearing the District Court held that:

1. W. R. Irby was not the agent of the company at the time of the attempted service, and, therefore, the service upon him did not bring the company into court;

2. That the American Tobacco Company was not doing business in Louisiana at the time of the attempted service;

3. That the attempted service upon the Secretary of State of Louisiana did not bring the defendant corporation into court.

Section 7 of the Sherman Act provides that suits of the character of the one now under consideration may be brought in the district in which the defendant 'resides or is found.' When applied to a corporation this requirement is the equivalent of saying that it must be present in the district by its officers and agents carrying on the business of the corporation. In this way only can a corporation be said to be 'found' within the district. In that manner it may manifest its submission to local jurisdiction and become amenable to local process.

The testimony shows that up to November 30, 191 , the American Tobacco Company had a factory in New Orleans for the manufacture of tobacco and cigarettes known as the W. R. Irby Branch of the American Tobacco Company, of which W. R. Irby was manager. Under the law of the State it had filed in the office of the Secretary of State an appointment of W. R. Irby as agent, upon whom service of process might be made.

On November 16, 1911, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York made a decree dissolving the American Tobacco Company. Among other things that decree provided that the American Tobacco Company should convey its W. R. Irby Branch to a company to be formed and known as the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company. Conveyances were made to carry out this purpose.

The American Tobacco Company by an instrument executed by Mr. Hill, its vice president, revoked the authority of W. R. Irby as its resident agent, and filed the revocation of authority in the office of the Secretary of State of Louisiana on December 15, 1911. W. R. Irby testified that thereafter he was the manager of the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, and that he had no connection whatsoever with the American Tobacco Company, nor had he drawn any salary from that company since December 1, 1911.

It is true that the record discloses some instances in which collections were made upon bills in the name of the Irby Branch of the American Tobacco Company after the revocation of Mr. Irby's authority as its agent. Most of them were stamped across the face, Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company.

There remained on hand with the Irby Branch at the time of the dissolution a quantity of cigarette paper which was continued to be delivered to purchasers by the employes of the Irby Branch of the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company upon orders received from the American Tobacco Company, and for its benefit and upon its account. This practically continued until the stock was exhausted, which the testimony shows was within a month after the dissolution, and before the attempted service of process in this case.

There were lodged in the custom house in New Orleans powers of attorney of the American Tobacco Company giving authority to those named therein to do what was necessary to make out export papers on behalf of the company. These powers of attorney do not appear to have been revoked, and existed after the service of process. The defendant company issued circulars subsequent to the time it was served with process in this suit; it also advertised in the New Orleans newspapers.

A consideration of all the testimony leads us to the conclusion that the American Tobacco Company undertook in good faith to carry out the decree of dissolution, and to take that company out of business in the State of Louisiana. It is true, as found by the District...

To continue reading

Request your trial
407 cases
  • Roorda v. VOLKSWAGENWERK, AG, Civ. A. No. 76-2237.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • December 20, 1979
    ...Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 364 27 S.Ct. 513, 51 L.Ed. 841; and People's Tobacco Co., Ltd. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 87 38 S.Ct. 233, 62 L.Ed. 587, Ann. Cas.1918C, 537. In the case at bar, the identity of interest may have been more complete and ......
  • International Shoe Co. v. State
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1945
    ... ... In ... People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., ... 246 U.S ... v. American ... Tobacco Co., 1918, 246 U.S. 79, 38 S.Ct. 233, 62 L.Ed ... 587, ... ...
  • Morrison v. Guaranty Mortgage & Trust Co
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1940
    ... ... 269, 147 So. 328; North ... American Mortgage Co. v. Hudson, 176 Miss. 266, 168 ... So. 79; ... Terminal ... Warehouse Co., 81 A.L.R. 1127; People B. & L., etc., ... v. Berlin et al., 50 A. 308; Watson et ... 525, 91 Am. St. Rep. 87; Peoples Tobacco Co. v. Am ... Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 62 L.Ed. 587; ... ...
  • Milling Co v. Bondurant
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1921
    ...e. g., Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 37 Sup. Ct. 280, 61 L. Ed. 710; People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79, 38 Sup. Ct. 233, 62 L. Ed. 587, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 537, and Chipman, Limited, v. Jeffrey Co., 251 U. S. 373, 40 Sup. Ct. 172, 64 L. Ed.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT