Bachler v. Maytag Co.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 5.,5. |
| Citation | 251 Mich. 439,232 N.W. 194 |
| Parties | BACHLER v. MAYTAG CO. et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari from Circuit Court, Macomb County; Neil E. Reid, Judge.
Suit by Alphonsus A. Bachler against the Maytag Company and others. To review order denying motion to dismiss, defendant brings certiorari.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Lungerhausen, Weeks, Lungerhausen & Neale, of Mount Clemens (Paul S. Hirt, of Lenox, of counsel), for appellants.
Walter M. Nelson, of Detroit, for appellee.
Because of an alleged fraud, plaintiff brought this suit to recover damages against the Maytag Company, an Iowa corporation, and also against the Maytag Company, a Delaware corporation. Service of the declaration was made on one Fred G. Longstaff, who was referred to in the return of service as ‘defendant named in said declaration.’ As a matter of fact Longstaff was not the defendant but instead he was the district manager of the Maytag Sales Corporation which was also organized under the laws of Delaware. Defendants entered a special appearance and move to dismiss the cause on the ground that the defendant corporations were not doing business in Michigan and no service of process had been made upon an officer or agent of either of these corporations. Pending the disposition of the motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed an amended declaration wherein the Maytag Sales Corporation was made a party defendant. Service was again obtained upon Mr. Longstaff, and this latter defendant entered a general appearance. Thereafter testimony was taken somewhat at length incident to the hearing of the motion to dismiss as to the other two defendants. The motion was denied by the circuit judge, and is before us for review by certiorari.
‘In all cases where suit is brought against a foreign corporation, process may be served upon any officer or agent of such corporation within this state, and any person representing such corporation in any capacity, shall be deemed an agent within the meaning of this section.’ Vol. 3. Comp. Laws 1915, § 12434.
Plaintiff asserts that valid service of process within the provision of the quoted statute was obtained. In his amended declaration he alleges that the defendants ‘organized and maintained a series of corporations intended to be free from legal responsibility for the systematic fraud complained of by plaintiff; * * * and that each of said companies is the agent of the other in the perpetration of the fraud and wrongs complained of by plaintiff. * * *’ Plaintiff claims that the Maytag Sales Corporation is the agent of the Maytag Company incorporated in Iowa and the Maytag Company incorporated in Delaware. This view was adopted by the trial judge and he therefore held that service on the Maytag Sales Corporation was good service on each of the other corporations. Careful consideration of the record fails to disclose testimony which would justify the conclusion that the organization of the Maytag Sales Corporation was prompted by any fraudulent intent, or that it has been used for any fraudulent purpose or as a means of evading legal obligations. It is a separate corporate entity. Its main office is in Newton, Iowa; and evidently it is closely identified with the Maytag Company incorporated under the laws of Delaware, which is the manufacturing company. These two corporations appear to be officered by the same men. The sales corporation maintains a branch at Indianapolis, Ind., through which its business in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malooly v. York Heating & Ventilating Corp.
...of the agent in the state is not alone sufficient; the corporation must also be doing business within the state. Bachler v. Maytag Co., 251 Mich. 439, 232 N. W. 194. The affidavit of defendant York Company's vice president describes its Detroit office as a ‘so-called branch sales office,’ b......
-
National Concessions, Inc. v. National Circus Corp., 41
...unless they were then doing business in this State. Smart v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 240 Mich. 542, 215 N.W. 390; Bachler v. Maytag Co., 251 Mich. 439, 232 N.W. 194; Hershel Radio Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 334 Mich. 148, 54 N.W.2d 286. The allegation in the affidavit of plaintiff's att......
-
Hellman v. Ladd
...in this State is not alone sufficient to constitute corporate presence, unless the corporation is doing business here. Bachler v. Maytag Co., 251 Mich. 439, 232 N.W. 194. Jurisdiction is usually entertained when the cause of action against the corporation occurs within the State and when it......
- Sebring v. Mawby, 118.