257 U.S. 533 (1922), 102, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Clarendon Boat Oar Company, Inc.

Docket Nº:No. 102
Citation:257 U.S. 533, 42 S.Ct. 210, 66 L.Ed. 354
Party Name:Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Clarendon Boat Oar Company, Inc.
Case Date:February 27, 1922
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 533

257 U.S. 533 (1922)

42 S.Ct. 210, 66 L.Ed. 354

Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

v.

Clarendon Boat Oar Company, Inc.

No. 102

United States Supreme Court

Feb. 27, 1922

Argued January 20, 1922

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT,

OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Syllabus

A state law for securing jurisdiction over foreign corporations in proceedings in the state courts by requiring appointment of agents upon whom process may be served, applicable alike to actions by residents or nonresidents, clearly does not violate due process in not applying to transitory actions arising outside the state; a contention to the contrary made by plaintiff foreign corporation is frivolous, and will not support a writ of error. P. 534.

Writ of error dismissed.

Error to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana affirming a judgment of a district court of the state and dismissing for want of jurisdiction an action for breach of contract brought by the railroad against the Boat Oar Company.

Page 534

TAFT, J., lead opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a writ of error to the judgment of the highest court of the State of Louisiana to which the case could be taken. The plaintiff, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a Missouri corporation, sued the defendant company, the Clarendon Boat Oar Company, a New York company, for damages in the District Court of Richland Parish, for the breach of an affreightment contract entered into in the State of Arkansas and to be performed in that state. The defendant appeared solely to except to the jurisdiction. The district court sustained the exception, and, on appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Second Circuit, this ruling was affirmed and the cause dismissed. The supreme court of the state refused to entertain an appeal.

Act 243 of 1912, p. 543, and Act 267 of 1914, p. 532, of the Annual Laws of Louisiana provide that service on foreign corporations may be made on any agent which the corporation has designated, and require that every foreign corporation doing business in the state shall file a written declaration with the Secretary of the state, showing its domicile and the place or places where it is to do business and designating its agent, resident in the parish where its business is to be done, and that service on said agent, whether...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP