Callahan v. Union Pac. R. Co.

Decision Date04 March 1921
Docket NumberNo. 22280.,22280.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
PartiesCALLAHAN v. UNION PAC. R. CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Douglas County; J. A. Roeser, Judge.

Action by T. J. Callahan against the Union Pacific Railroad Company. A motion to quash service was denied, and defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.Sanborn, Graves & Ordway, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Davis & Michel, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to dismiss as frivolous an appeal from an order of the district court of Douglas county, refusing to vacate and set aside the service of the summons. Defendant is a foreign corporation which operates a railroad engaged in interstate commerce. Plaintiff, one of its employés, was injured while engaged in such commerce in the state of Nebraska and brought this action in this state to recover damages therefor. The summons was served on defendant's general agent in this state for the solicitation of freight and passenger traffic. Defendant moved to quash the service on the ground that it neither owned nor operated any railroad within this state, nor did any business within this state other than to solicit freight and passenger traffic therein for transportation over its lines outside the state. The motion was denied, and defendant appealed from the order denying it. Plaintiff bases his contention that the appeal is frivolous and taken solely for the purpose of delay on the ground that this court has already decided in four different cases that such service under such circumstances is valid. The cases cited are: Armstrong v. N. Y. C. & H. R. Ry. Co., 129 Minn. 104, 151 N. W. 917, L. R. A. 1916E, 232, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 335;Lagergren v. Penn. Ry. Co., 130 Minn. 35, 152 N. W. 1102;Rishmiller v. Denver & Rio Grande Ry. Co., 134 Minn. 261, 159 N. W. 272;Merchants Elevator Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 179 N. W. 734.

Our statute (Gen. St. 1913, § 7735) provides:

‘That any foreign corporation having an agent in this state for the solicitation of freight and passenger traffic or either thereof over its lines outside of this state, may be served with summons by delivering a copy thereof to such agent.'

Whether maintaining an agent in a state for the solicitation of freight and passenger traffic over a railroad wholly outside the state is such a doing of business in the state as to enable the state to subject a foreign railway corporation to the jurisdiction of its courts is not free from doubt. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Dahl v. Collette
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 29 Abril 1938
  • Dahl v. Collette
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 29 Abril 1938
    ...been observed is a federal question and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are controlling. Callaghan v. Union Pacific R. Co., 148 Minn. 482, 182 N.W. 1004; Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U.S. 264, 37 S.Ct. 280, 61 L.Ed. 710. The case falling within a d......
  • Davis v. Farmers Equity Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 21 Mayo 1923
    ...Minn. 261, 159 N. W. 272; Merchants' Elevator Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 147 Minn. 188, 179 N. W. 734; Callaghan v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 148 Minn. 482, 182 N. W. 1004. This condition imposes upon interstate commerce a serious and unreasonable burden, which renders the statute obn......
  • C. Gotzian & Co. v. Truszinski
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 19 Noviembre 1926
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT