Crane v. Rothring
| Citation | 183 N.W.2d 434,27 Mich.App. 189 |
| Decision Date | 05 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 8253,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | George CRANE, d/b/a Michigan Systems Research Co., Plaintiff- Appellant, v. Robert ROTHRING, d/b/a Professional Management Company, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
James D. O'Connell, O'Connell & Long, Highland Park, for plaintiff-appellant.
John R. Cobau, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and LEVIN and DAVIDSON, * JJ.
Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Michigan and does business within the state. The defendant is not a resident of Michigan.
On December 10, 1968, plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement for the sale by plaintiff of certain machinery and a Cadillac automobile to the defendant in return for $22,000.00. The automobile was delivered to the defendant when the agreement was signed in Wayne County, Michigan.
Subsequently, defendant refused to complete the transaction and re-delivered the automobile. The transaction in question is the only business which has ever been conducted between the parties to this cause.
On August 4, 1969, plaintiff started suit in Wayne County Circuit Court on the contract. Process was served on the defendant in Cincinnati, Ohio, on August 25, 1969. The defendant made an appearance and moved to quash the service and to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction. These motions were granted on September 19, 1969 by the trial court for the reason that 'A single act of purchasing goods in the state does not constitute doing business within the meaning of § 705 of the Act, StatAnn1962 Rev § 27A.705.'
The only issue on appeal then, is whether the negotiation and execution of a single contract in this State for the purchase of goods and the receipt by the purchaser of a portion of those goods in this State subject the purchaser to the jurisdiction of Michigan courts for claims arising out of and limited to that contract?
We find that the circuit judge erred in quashing process and dismissing the complaint. We cannot agree with the lower court judge that a single agreement to purchase is not the transaction of any business within the State so as to confer limited jurisdiction under M.C.L.A. § 600.705(1) (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 27A.705(1)).
The defendant's reliance on the case of Corey v. Cook & Company (1966), 3 Mich.App. 359, 142 N.W.2d 514, is misplaced, as the court there was faced with a case where the plaintiff relied upon subsection (5) rather than subsection (1) of M.C.L.A. § 600.705 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 27A.705).
We see no reason to interpret the language of subsection (1) 'transaction of any business' as requiring more than a single act of purchasing.
In this case the defendant came into Michigan, negotiated and signed a contract, and then took delivery of a portion of the goods in partial performance of the plaintiff's obligations under the contract. We consider that the actions of the defendant clearly constitute the transaction of business within the State. Since the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dangerfield v. Bachman Foods, Inc., Civ. No. A2-80-92.
...v. Horen, 385 Mich. 195, 188 N.W.2d 623, 624 n.2 (1971). It requires no more than a single act of purchasing. Crane v. Rothring, 27 Mich.App. 189, 183 N.W.2d 434, 435 (1970). Furthermore, one need not be physically present in the state to "transact business within the state," and a contract......
-
Parish v. Mertes
...be asserted over the defendants, mindful that there need be but a single act to find sufficient minimal contacts. Crane v. Rothring, 27 Mich.App. 189, 183 N.W.2d 434 (1970), Kiefer v. May, Plaintiff's affidavit cites several phone calls between her home in Michigan and defendants' office in......
-
Kiefer v. May
...took place does not preclude a court from acquiring limited personal jurisdiction under section 1 of the statute Crane v. Rothring, 27 Mich.App. 189, 183 N.W.2d 434 (1970). It should be noted that the present dispute also can be most conveniently handled in Michigan. Three of the four witne......
-
Cole v. Doe
...9 Mich.App. 515, 157 N.W.2d 498 (1968), Woods v. Edgewater Amusement Park, 381 Mich. 559, 165 N.W.2d 12 (1969), Crane v. Rothring, 27 Mich.App. 189, 183 N.W.2d 434 (1970), Sifers v. Horen, 385 Mich. 195, 188 N.W.2d 623 (1971), Kiefer v. May, 46 Mich.App. 566, 208 N.W.2d 539 Appellant cites ......