James H. Rhodes & Co. v. Chausovsky

• Decision Date: 05 August 1948
• Docket Number: No. 154958.,154958.
• Citation: 60 A.2d 623,137 N.J.L. 459
• Parties: JAMES H. RHODES & CO. v. CHAUSOVSKY et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

137 N.J.L. 459

60 A.2d 623

JAMES H. RHODES & CO.

v.CHAUSOVSKY et al.

No. 154958.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Aug. 5, 1948.

Action by James H. Rhodes & Company, a corporation, against Jacobo Chausovsky and another for breach of a contract to form a corporation. On defendants' motion to quash the service of summons and dismiss the complaint.

Motion denied.

Before HEHER, J., at the Passaic Circuit.

Gurtman & Schomer, of Passaic, for the motion.

Corbin & Corbin, of Passaic, contra.

HEHER, Justice.

The action is for damages alleged to have ensued from the breach of a contract entered into between plaintiff and defendants on April 16, 1945, but dated the following day, providing for the formation by the parties of ‘an Argentine corporation’ with a prescribed capital fund, for the manufacture of steel wool on a royalty basis during a term of twelve years in the republics of Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile under a process and technical supervision and by machinery supplied by plaintiff. The defendants each subscribed for 25% of the capital stock of the proposed corporation, payable in cash; and plaintiff subscribed for 50% of the stock, to be issued in consideration of the ‘granting of licenses and the rendering of services' as therein provided. Averring full performance on its part, plaintiff charges nonperformance in their entirety of the stipulations made by defendants, and in particular their refusal to organize the corporation and to pay their capital subscriptions, all to plaintiff's loss and detriment in these particulars: (a) expenditures made in performance, i. e. procuring machinery, preparation, and so on, amounting to $40,000; and (b) loss of royalties in the sum of $200,000.

Plaintiff is a corporation organized and subsisting under the laws of the State of Illinois. It is authorized to do business in New Jersey; and it owns property situate in this State. Jacobo Chausovsky is and was at the time of the making of the contract a citizen of Argentina; Isaias, his brother and co-defendant, is a citizen of Russia. Both are residents of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The contract indicates execution in the State of New York; this seems to be admitted. But there is a provision that ‘any differences which may arise is connection with this agreement shall be arbitrated in Buenos Aires, Argentina,’ one arbitrator to be chosen by plaintiff and one by defendants and a third by the two so appointed.

Service of process was made upon Jacobo Chausovsky while he was sojourning with relatives in the County of Passaic, in this State; the summons was returned ‘non est’ as to Isaias. Seeming to concede that Jacobo, by his presence in New Jersey, became amenable to this court's general jurisdiction and process, it is neverthless urged that the court's ‘discretion should be resolved against retention of jurisdiction.’

Jurisdiction is judicial power, i. e. the power to hear and determine the controversy. Judicial power is an attribute of sovereignty, exercisable in personam upon all persons within the state's domain. It is of the essence of due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, that the power to hear and determine a controversy in personam is not exercisable unless there be jurisdiction of the parties. Jurisdiction in personam ordinarily arises from the party's presence within the state and service of process therein upon him. The state has jurisdiction over all persons within its borders, for the enforcement of a transitory cause of action. A non-resident found within the territorial jurisdiction is subject to service therein of its process in personam, even though his presence is but temporary. Hale v. Lawrence, 21 N.J.L. 714, 47 Am.Dec. 190; Ackerson v. Erie Railway Co., 31 N.J.L. 309; D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165, 52 U.S. 165, 13 L.Ed. 648; Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437, 52 U.S. 437, 13 L.Ed. 761; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350, 1 S.Ct. 354, 27 L.Ed. 222; Hart v. Sansom, 110 U.S. 151, 3 S.Ct. 586, 28 L.Ed. 101; Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U.S. 41, 12 S.Ct. 541, 36 L.Ed. 338.

But it is suggested...