Campbell v. United States Radiator Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1933 |
| Citation | 167 A. 558 |
| Parties | CAMPBELL v. UNITED STATES RADIATOR CORPORATION. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Coos County; Page, Judge.
Assumpsit by Francis J. Campbell against the United States Radiator Corporation. Motion to dismiss action for lack of jurisdiction was denied, and defendant brings exception.
Case transferred; exception sustained.
Assumpsit to recover damages for deficiencies in a boiler, purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant.
The defendant is a foreign corporation, and moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. It appeared that an agent of the defendant came into the state and solicited an order for the boiler. He forwarded the order to the defendant, but it did not appear that ho had authority to close the contract. Complaint being made by the plaintiff, the defendant's branch manager came from Portland, Maine, and investigated the claim. At a later date he came into this state to solicit other orders, and the writ was then served upon him.
The court denied the motion, and the case was transferred by Page, J., upon the defendant's exception to such denial.
Coulombe & Coulombe, of Berlin (Norman J. Coulombe, of Berlin, orally), for plaintiff.
Crawford D. Hening, of Lancaster, for defendant.
In this action against a foreign corporation, the issue presented is whether the defendant was or had been doing business in this state to such an extent that the state has jurisdiction over it in a suit growing out of the business. The question is one of federal law. The defendant invokes the protection of the Federal Constitution, and the problem presented is the extent of that protection as defined and applied by the federal court.
It is conceded by every one that a foreign corporation which goes into a state and there does business in an extensive way thereby submits itself to the jurisdiction. In the language of the cases, there must be something of "a continuous course of business." Intemational Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579, 585, 34 S. Ct. 944, 946, 58 L. Ed. 1479. The explanation that thus only can its "actual presence there" be established (Bank of America v. Bank, 261 U. S. 171, 43 S. Ct. 311, 312, 67 L. Ed. 594) is fairly subject to the criticism that one cannot act unless present, and that presence is as indubitably shown by a single act as by many transactions. But we have no concern with the adequacy or correctness of the reasons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dahl v. Collette
...function of the latter body "to review the adequacy of the supporting logic" upon which the precedent is based. Campbell v. U. S. Radiator Corp., 86 N.H. 310, 167 A. 558, 559. Nor has it the power to create an aberrant rule. Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189, 35 S.......
-
Tirrell v. Johnston
...the probable federal position, if the problem in hand were before the federal court for decision. Campbell v. U. S. Radiator Corporation, 86 N. H. ——, 167 A. 558, and cases In such a situation it is the duty of the state court not merely to consider the fact that certain reasons have been g......
-
Roy v. North Am. Newspaper Alliance, Inc.
...followed the federal decisions as to what constituted doing business by a foreign corporation. Thus in Campbell v. United States Radiator Corporation, 86 N.H. 310, 311, 167 A. 558 (1933), it was noted that the 'presence' of a foreign corporation 'is as indubitably shown by a single act as b......
-
WH Elliott & Sons Co. v. E. & F. KING & CO.
...& Gamble Company, 95 N.H. 74, 57 A.2d 619, 621. There, the court quotes an earlier New Hampshire decision Campbell v. United States Radiator Corp., 86 N.H. 310, 167 A. 558 to the effect that the "`question is one of federal law'", and goes on to say that it considers "federal decisions as c......