Bentley v. Allen-Sherman-Hoff Pump Co., ALLEN-SHERMAN-HOFF

• Decision Date: 20 December 1972
• Docket Number: No. 55117,A-S-H,ALLEN-SHERMAN-HOFF,55117
• Citation: 203 N.W.2d 312
• Parties: Joan A. BENTLEY, Administrator of the Estate of Henry J. Bentley, Deceased, Appellant, v.PUMP CO. andIndustries, Inc., Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 312

203 N.W.2d 312

Joan A. BENTLEY, Administrator of the Estate of Henry J. Bentley, Deceased, Appellant, v. ALLEN-SHERMAN-HOFF PUMP CO. and A-S-H Industries, Inc., Appellees.

No. 55117.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Jasper W. Morgan, Clinton, and Gerald T. Sullivan, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Lane & Waterman, Davenport, for appellees.

Heard before MOORE, C.J., and MASON, RAWLINGS, REES and HARRIS, JJ.

HARRIS, Justice.

Plaintiff's counsel was misled as he sought to serve defendant an original notice as specified under section 617.3, The Code. Counsel was thereby deterred from complying with the statute. Plaintiff appeals a ruling sustaining defendant's special appearance. We affirm.

A wrongful death action was filed March 7, 1970 against defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation which does business in Iowa. It is claimed defendant manufactured an industrial pump which later exploded causing the death of plaintiff's decedent.

Following service on the secretary of state of Iowa, plaintiff attempted to mail notification of the filing to defendant as provided by section 617.3, The Code. It provides in pertinent part as follows:

Service of such process or original notice shall be made (1) by filing duplicate copies of said process or original notice with said secretary of state, together with a fee of five dollars, and (2) by mailing to the defendant and to each of them if more than one, by registered or certified mail, a notification of said filing with the secretary of state, the same to be so mailed within ten days after such filing with the secretary of state. Such notification shall be mailed to each such foreign corporation at the address of its principal office in the state or country under the laws of which it is incorporated and to each such nonresident person at his address in the state of his residence.' (Emphasis added)

The mailing was attempted in reliance on telephone information given plaintiff's counsel by the corporation bureau of the department of state of Pennsylvania. After searching the records a department employee found and reported the certificate of incorporation issued January 3, 1938, a corporation name change October 4, 1956 to A-S-H Industries, Inc. and a merger June 29, 1962 with Allen-Sherman-Hoff Pump Co. Counsel was told this was the extent of the department's records and that the principal business address for both merged corporations was 33 Sproul Road, Frazer, Pennsylvania. Notification was mailed to this address, return receipts were signed and returned to plaintiff's attorney.

Three months later and after the statutory period for commencement of actions had elapsed, a special appearance with supporting affidavit was filed by defendant. For the first time it was thereby indicated 33 Sproul Road, Frazer, Pennsylvania was not the defendant's address. Counsel promptly requested the corporation bureau to certify their records, confidently expecting to make a showing they were as he had been previously advised. Instead he received a copy of the 'change of registered office' of A-S-H Industries, Inc. to 111 Wynnewood House, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. This document was apparently overlooked by the employee of the corporation bureau who previously gave the other corporate address.

The error went undiscovered until this time by reason of still another misfeasance at the time the letter was delivered. The United States postal employee did not deliver the letter to the defendant addressee but handed it instead to Raymond Landes, an employee of another corporation. Landes signed the return receipt which was returned to plaintiff's counsel. Landes notified an official of defendant corporation so that defendant did in fact ultimately come into possession of the letter. Plaintiff's counsel had no way of knowing Landes was never an employee of the defendant and that he was not authorized to act as defendant's agent.

It is apparent plaintiff's counsel acted responsibly in attempting service on defendant. He can not be faulted for the error of the agent of the corporation bureau. Neither can he be faulted for relying on the misinformation in view of the receipt acknowledged by Landes. The question becomes whether counsel's freedom from fault will suffice to confer jurisdiction in an Iowa court over a foreign corporation.

I. We have previously explained the importance of complying with requirements of section 617.3, The Code:

'We have held in several decisions that this procedure is an extraordinary method for obtaining jurisdiction over the person of a defendant and that a statute permitting such service of notice must be clear and definite and there must be...