Berlemann v. Superior Distributing Co.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1958
• Docket Number: No. 58-F-26,58-F-26
• Citation: 151 N.E.2d 116,17 Ill.App.2d 522
• Parties: George F. BERLEMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPERIOR DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 116

151 N.E.2d 116

17 Ill.App.2d 522

George F. BERLEMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPERIOR DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 58-F-26.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

June 2, 1958.

Eldon M. Durr, Edwardsville, for appellant.

Burroughs, Simpson & Burroughs, Edwardsville, for appellee.

BARDENS, Presiding Justice.

Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court of Madison County against defendant, a Colorado corporation, for breach of warranty. Summons was served personally on an officer of defendant in Colorado. Defendant thereupon filed its motion to quash the service of summons on the grounds that it had not thertofore submitted to jurisdiction or transacted any business in Illinois, and, therefore, was not subject to the jurisdiction of Illinois courts. This motion was allowed. Plaintiff's appeal to the Supreme Court was transferred to this Court inasmuch as no constitutional question was presented by the pleadings. The issue raised is whether or not the allegations of the Complaint meet the standard prescribed by the Legislature for the extension of jurisdiction of Illinois courts to non-residents.

The evolution and expansion by the courts of the concept of personal jurisdiction over non-residents has received the attention of writers in the legal field and need not be repeated here. (Cleary and Seder, Extended Jurisdictional Bases for the Illinois Courts, 50 N.W.L.Rev. 599 (1955); O'Connor, Jurisdiction of Illinois Courts Over Non-Residents,--Notre Dame Lawyer--(1955). Suffice it to say, the limitation on jurisdiction imposed by the notion that a local court's jurisdiction stopped at a state line because physical control of a defendant by the court ended there, was destroyed by the U. S. Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 1945, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95. Substituted for the prior test of physical presence in the forum was the requirement that the defendant 'have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'' The basis for the court's opinion is succinctly stated in the following language:

'But to the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state. The exercise of that privilege may give rise to obligations; and, as far as those obligations arise out of or are connected with the activities within the state, a procedure which requires the corporation to respond to a suit brought to enforce them can, in most instances, hardly be said to be undue.'

The new jurisdictional yardstick announced by the United States Supreme Court was adopted by the Illinois Legislature in its revision of the Civil Practice Act in 1955. Sec. 17 of Ch. 110 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1955), in so far as material here, provides:

'(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits said person, 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 said acts:

'(a) The transaction of any business within this State;

* * *

* * *

'(3) Only causes of action arising from acts enumerated herein may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which jurisdiction over him is based upon this section.'

Thus it is apparent from a literal reading of the statute that a non-resident is now amenable to a suit in Illinois which arises out of the transaction of any business here. Added to the background and meaning of this provision provided by the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court is the recent decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 143 N.E.2d 673, 679. There a Wisconsin appliance dealer, through its agents, in delivering and unloading merchandise in Illinois, negligently caused injury to a resident of Illinois, Service of summons was had on defendant in Wisconsin. In its decision finding the provisions of Sec. 17 not unconstitutional as denying a non-resident due process of law, though Sub-section (b) was there involved rather than Sub-section (a), the Court observed that 'Sections 16 and ...