Booz v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1911 |
| Citation | 95 N.E. 460,250 Ill. 376 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | BOOZ v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; William N. Gemmill, Judge.
Action by John T. Booz against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Jeffery, Ott & Campbell (Charles V. Clark, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
John T. Booz, defendant in error, sued the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, plaintiff in error, for the value of an overcoat alleged to have been lost by him on February 25, 1909, through negligence of plaintiff in error while he was a passenger on one of its trains between two stations in Louisiana. Summons was returned by a bailiff served on George W. Pither, chief clerk and agent of defendant. A limited appearance was entered by attorneys for defendant for the sole purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the court, and a motion was made to quash and set aside the return. The facts upon which the motion was decided are as follows:
The defendant is a railroad corporation existing under the laws of the United States and the state of Texas, with its principal office in Dallas, Tex. Its lines of road are in Texas and Louisiana, and it has never owned, leased, or operated any road, nor had any principal office, in this state, and the cause of action did not arise in this state. George W. Pither is an employé of W. C. Staley, a soliciting freight agent, and Ellis Farnsworth, a soliciting passenger agent, of several foreign railroad companies, including the defendant. The defendant and four other railroad companies operating railroads outside of this state in the same region jointly maintain three offices in the city of Chicago and jointly pay the office expenses and salarles of the employés; the defendant paying its share of the rental and salaries. All the employés and the business are under the control of Edward B. Boyd, who is not an officer of any of the corporations, but is hired by the railroads jointly, and is called an assistant to the vice president. The only business transacted through this office or by the employés is soliciting shipments by way of the lines of these corporations from large manufacturing and industrial concerns, and endeavoring to persuade prospective shippers or consignees of freight to route shipments over the lines of said corporations, and soliciting passenger business by persuading passengers to purchase their tickets so they will pass over some one or more of the lines of said corporations, all of which are outside of this state. That is and has been the only business transacted in this state for the defendant,and neither Boyd nor any of the employés under him have any power to make a contract for the defendant, to issue any bill of lading, sell any ticket, receive any money, or make any freight or passenger contract. Boyd and his subordinates devote only a portion of their time to the services of the defendant, and the sole duties performed by them are the solicitation of freight and passenger business.
The court overuled the motion to quash the return, and the defendant elected to stand by its motion, and declined to enter another or further appearance. The court thereupon heard the evidence for the plaintiff, found the issues in his favor, assessed his damages at $50, and entered judgment for that amount. The defendant excepted to the judgment, and sued out a writ of error from this court to obtain a review of the record. By the assignment of errors it is alleged that the judgment violated the Constitutions of this state and the United States by depriving the defendant of its property without due process of law.
[1][2] A question of the jurisdiction of a court to render a judgment is one of due process of law, and if the defendant was not amenable to service of process within this state, the judgment was not rendered in pursuance of the due process of law guaranteed by our Constitution. Section 8 of the practice act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1909, c. 110) provides the method for acquiring jurisdiction of a corporation, which may be done by leaving a copy with any clerk or agent of the corporation, if the president cannot be found within the county. The section is not confined, in its terms, to domestic corporations, and if a foreign corporation is present within this state, and has an agent here, process may be served upon it. A business corporation is constructively present in any state where it has property and carries on its operations by means of agents, although the domicile of the corporation is in another state. Edwards v. Schillinger, 245 Ill. 231, 91 N. E. 1048,137 Am. St. Rep. 308....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Wilder Mfg. Co.
...Ed. 964; Howard v. Smith, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 331; Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v. De Bow, 148 Ga. 738, 98 S. E. 381; Booz v. Texas, etc., R. R. Co., 250 M. 376, 95 N. E. 460. "Whether such a corporation is doing business in the state is a question of jurisdiction, and in its last analysis it ......
-
Insull v. New York World-Telegram Corporation
...251 U.S. 549, 40 S.Ct. 178, 64 L.Ed. 409, certiorari dismissed 253 U.S. 499, 40 S.Ct. 483, 64 L.Ed. 1032; Booz v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 1911, 250 Ill. 376, 95 N.E. 460. See Morris & Co. v. Skandinavia Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 1936, 81 F.2d 346; 20 C.J.S. Corporations §§ 1922-1923. The decisions......
-
Hall v. Wilder Manufacturing Company
... ... v. Kane, 170 U.S. 100; Howard v. Smith (N. Y ... Sup. Ct.), 3 Jones and Spencer, 131; Vicksburg Ry ... Co. v. DeBow, 148 Ga. 738; Booz v. Texas Ry ... Co., 250 Ill. 376.] "Whether such a corporation is ... doing business in the State is a question of jurisdiction, ... and in its ... ...
-
Fisk v. Wellsville Fire Brick Co.
...Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 139, 59 L.Ed. 910, 35 S.Ct. 579; Pembleton v. Ill. Commercial Men's Assoc., 289 Ill. 99; Booz v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 250 Ill. 376; Buel v. Boston & M. Ry. Co., 344 Ill. 11; ex rel. v. Hogan, 232 Mo.App. 291, 103 S.W.2d 497. (6) The Illinois Legislature di......