State ex rel. Deere & Co. v. Pinnell

Decision Date08 June 1970
Docket NumberNo. 54486,54486
PartiesSTATE of Missouri ex rel. DEERE AND COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and John Deere Company of Moline, an Illinois Corporation, Relators, v. Honorable William H. PINNELL, Judge, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Haseltine & Springer, Horace S. Haseltine, Gregory K. Johnson, Springfield, for defendants-relators, Deere & Co., a Delaware corp., and John Deere of Moline, an Illinois corp.

Bob J. Keeter, Mann, Walter, Burkart, Weathers & Schroff, Springfield, for respondent.

MORGAN, Judge.

In this original proceeding, relators ask that we prohibit respondent circuit judge from acting in a manner alleged to be in excess of his jurisdiction. The challenge, specifically, is directed toward the court's order that relators answer certain interrogatories, but it is based on relators' assertion that the 'single act' long-arm statutes of this state are unconstitutional. Sections 351.633 and 506.500, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.

Relators, two foreign corporations unlicensed in this state, were, with others, named as defendants in a suit filed in Barry County for damages resulting from personal injuries suffered by plaintiff. The petition alleged that plaintiff owned a 1956 Model 420 John Deere tractor; that he purchased from a local implement dealer a fuel tank cap, part number AF2914R, for said tractor; that neither the gas tank nor cap were vented; that on the first occasion he used the tractor with the new fuel tank cap, gasoline was thrown on him causing severe burns and permanent disabling injuries. In addition to the local dealer, two corporations licensed in this state under names including the words 'John Deere,' as well as the two relators, were named as defendants. It was alleged that relator, Deere and Company, a Delaware corporation, was the parent company with all but the local dealer being controlled subsidiary corporations. In Count I, allegations were made that relators were engaged in the manufacture, design, testing, distribution, sale and servicing of John Deere tractors and parts, and while so doing used 'national channels of commerce' for distribution; that defendants placed such equipment on the market when 'said tractor and fuel tank cap were not reasonably fit for the general purpose for which they were designed * * * and were in a defective, unsafe and imminently dangerous condition'; that plaintiff was using said products in a manner which was reasonably foreseeable; and, that such defects were the proximate cause of the injuries suffered. See Keener v. Dayton Electric Mfg. Co., 445 S.W.2d 362, 364, wherein this court declared: 'We now adopt the rule of strict liability in tort stated in 2 Restatement, Law of Torts, Second, § 402A * * *.' In Count II, on a theory of negligence, it was alleged that the corporate defendants were negligent in manufacturing and distributing a tractor without a 'vented' gas tank and designing and selling 'unvented' fuel tank caps; and further, that they negligently failed to warn implement dealers of this fact. Counts III and IV by the wife for loss of consortium were premised, respectively, on the same theories.

In an apparent effort to act with an abundance of caution, plaintiff obtained service of process as provided both by Section 351.633 and 506.510 (the latter detailing the manner of service for actions under Section 506.500). Relators filed their motion to quash service. Necessarily, we look to the relevant portions of each statutory provision.

Section 351.633, enacted Laws 1965, S.B. No. 106, provides: 'If a foreign corporation commits a tort, excepting libel and slander, in whole or in part in Missouri against a resident or nonresident of Missouri, such act shall be deemed to be doing business in Missouri by the foreign corporation and shall be deemed equivalent to the appointment by the foreign corporation of the secretary of state of Missouri and his successors to be its agent and representative to accept service of any process in any actions or proceedings against the foreign corporation arising from or growing out of the tort * * *.' Provision is then made for the secretary of state to notify the foreign corporation of any service of process. This section and its predecessors (Sections 351.630 and 355.375) have been considered in State ex rel. Clay Equipment Corp. v. Jensen, Mo., 363 S.W.2d 666; State ex rel. Pressner & Co. v. Scott, Mo., 387 S.W.2d 539; and Jackman v. Century Brick Corp. of America, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 111. See 31 University of Kansas City Law Review 292. The mere reading of this statutory provision makes it clearly evident that it was the legislative purpose to extend the jurisdiction of the courts of this state over an unlicensed foreign corporation when it committed a tort 'in whole or in part' in Missouri. By the later enactment of Section 506.500, in 1967, a comparable jurisdictional concept was extended to include individuals and other entities. It declares: 'Any person or firm, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, or any corporation, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this section, thereby submits such person, firm, or corporation, and, if an individual, his personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts: (1) The transaction of any business within this state; (2) The making of any contract within this state; (3) The commission of a tortious act within this state (emphasis added); (4) The ownership, use, or possession of any real estate situated in this state; (5) The contracting to insure any person, property or risk located within this state at the time of contracting.' Section 506.510 authorizes personal service of process upon the defendant 'outside this state.' When circumstances are such that Section 506.500 is applicable and service has been had as provided in Section 506.510, Section 506.520 provides, 'the court shall have the power to render a personal judgment against such person, firm, or corporation.' These latter statutes have been considered in Adams Dairy Co. v. National Dairy Products Corp. (WD Mo.), 293 F.Supp. 1164; State ex rel. Nichols v. Fuller, Mo.App., 449 S.W.2d 11; and Scheidegger v. Greene, Mo., 451 S.W.2d 135. See 33 Missouri Law Review 248.

Both Sections 351.633 and 506.500 are applicable to an unlicensed foreign corporation, but in addition to noting the different mechanics of service allowed, it would be timely to point out that Section 351.633 predicates jurisdiction on the commission of a tort, except libel and slander, in 'whole or in part' in Missouri, whereas Section 506.500, subparagraph (3), calls for the commission of a 'tortious act' within this state. In view of the fact plaintiff complied with the service provisions of both sections, we need not ascertain, what, if any, significance might be attached to the varied terminology used.

We recognized in Scheidegger v. Greene, supra, that Section 506.500, and related sections, were adopted by the legislature of this state with not only an awareness of their similarity to comparable provisions of the statutory law of Illinois, but with the designed purpose of extending the jurisdiction of the courts of Missouri to comparable limits. 'Senate Bill 130 (now Sec. 506.500) is another effort to overcome any constitutional objections to broadening our laws for the service of process and taking personal judgments against nonresidents * * * This law was represented as being virtually identical to a similar law adopted by the State of Illinois which, it is said, has been held to be constitutional.' Senate Majority Leader William B. Waters, 23 J.Mo.Bar at 455. That the latter observation was well founded is evident from the conclusions expressed by Justice Schaefer for the Supreme Court of Illinois in Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 143 N.E.2d 673, at 676: 'Defendant's main contention is that the amended sections deny him due process of law, and so violate the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States and section 2 of article II of the constitution of Illinois, S.H.A. Since Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565, was decided in 1878, significant social, technological, and legal developments have occurred. Rigid concepts have yielded to fiction, and fiction has yielded to forthright and realistic considerations of fairness in the determination of what constitutes jurisdiction to determine personal rights. Mr. Justice Holmes's observation, 'The foundation of jurisdiction is physical power, * * *.' McDonald v. Mabee, 1917, 243 U.S. 90, 91, 37 S.Ct. 343, 61 L.Ed. 608, can no longer be read restrictively. The foundations of jurisdiction include the interest that a State has in providing redress in its own courts against persons who inflict injuries upon, or otherwise incur obligations to, those within the ambit of the State's legitimate protective policy. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
124 cases
  • Pfeiffer v. Intern. Acad. of Biomagnetic Medicine
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • 15 Septiembre 1981
    ...Clause as interpreted by International Shoe. Wooldridge v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 479 F.Supp. 1041 (W.D.Mo.1979); State ex rel. Deere and Company v. Pinnell, 454 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. en banc 1970). In other words the Missouri Legislature intended to broaden the scope of the Missouri long-arm stat......
  • State ex inf. Danforth v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 Septiembre 1975
    ... ... This court established sufficient standards in State ex rel. Deere and Company v. Pinnell, 454 S.W.2d 889 (banc 1970), to resolve the issue. Therein it was ... ...
  • Hitt v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 21 Julio 1975
    ... ... supra note 12 or choosing distributors for liquor after obtaining a state license to permit liquor sales to wholesalers located within the district ...          Deere & Co. v. Watts 38 was a wrongful death action against a foreign ... Co., 481 F.2d 326 (8th Cir. 1973); State ex rel. Deere & Co. v. Pinnell, 454 S. W.2d 889 (Missouri, 1970); Adams Dairy ... ...
  • Wooldridge v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • 13 Noviembre 1979
    ... ... Wooldridge is a resident and domiciliary of the State of Missouri; plaintiff Mary R. Wooldridge is a resident and domiciliary of ... Amendment of the Constitution of the United States." State ex rel. Deere & Co. v. Pinnell, 454 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Mo. en banc 1970). In view ... ...
  • 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