Daniel Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Company
| Decision Date | 29 May 1905 |
| Docket Number | No. 541,541 |
| Parties | DANIEL R. KENDALL, Appt. , v. AMERICAN AUTOMATIC LOOM COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This suit was brought against the defendant, appellee, for the purpose of obtaining a discovery of all the matters referred to in the bill of complaint, and to have a receiver appointed of the assets of the company within the state of New York, and for an accounting by the directors of the defendant, and for other relief.
The bill alleged that the plaintiff, at the time of filing his bill, was a citizen of the United States and of the state, county, and city of New York; that the defendant was a stock corporation, organized in March, 1898, and existing under the laws of the state of West Virginia, and was incorporated to engage in the business of manufacturing and selling looms and weaving machinery, and that, by its charter, its principal office and place of business was in the city, county, and state of New York. The bill of complaint, together with a writ of subpoena requiring the defendant to answer the bill, were served in the city of New York upon a person who had been the treasurer of the defendant corporation. Within the proper time the defendant appeared specially, for the sole purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the court, and of moving to set aside the attempted service.
The motion was founded upon the affidavit of Joseph H. Emery, in which he averred, among other matters, that the service of the subpoena had been made upon him in the city of New York, because (as he believed) he had been the treasurer of the defendant corporation; that the domicil and residence of the defendant were in the state of West Virginia; the purpose of its incorporation was the development of a selffeeding loom attachment, which gives to the ordinary loom a continuous supply of filling thread. It was further stated in the affidavit that the corporation was the owner of divers patents, but it had never manufactured merchandise. It had never made a sale, and it had never engaged in the transaction of the business for which it was incorporated. It had no business or assets in the state of New York, and had no office or place of business there, and those of its officers who resided in that state were not there officially, or as representing any business or interest of the corporation. After the formation of the corporation, and between the years 1898 and 1901, the meetings of the directors of the company were held at different places in the city of New York where accommodations could be secured,—sometimes at the office of the counsel of the company in New York, and sometimes at a hotel; but since August 10, 1901, there had been no meeting, either of the stockholders or of the directors; and on the last-mentioned date the stockholders were notified that the company had no funds with which to pay the franchise taxes which were due to the state of West Virginia, and affiant averred that no funds had since been provided for that purpose; that since that date the company had transacted no business, had maintained no office in the state of New York, and that an action had been commenced by the state of West Virginia against it to terminate and forfeit its corporate franchise. The sole assets of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Catlettsburg, Ky., v. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ohio
... ... involved in the cases of American Bank & Trust Co. v ... Federal Reserve Bank ... First. Was the Pacific Company doing business in the state ... of Texas? ... 407, 25 Sup.Ct. 483, 49 L.Ed. 810; ... Kendall v. Automatic Loom Co., 198 U.S. 477, 25 ... ...
-
State v. W. T. Rawleigh Co
...cases to the same effect are reviewed. Bruner v. Kansas Moline Plow Co., 1GS P. 218, 93 C. C. A. 504; Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co., 198 TJ. S. 477, 25 S. Ct. 768, 49 L. Ed. 1133; Frawley Bundy & Wilcox v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co. (C. C.) 124 F. 259. Tlie state cannot, by statutor......
-
Hall v. Wilder Manufacturing Company
...8; Riverside Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189; Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518; Conley v. Alkali Works, 190 U.S. 406; Kendall v. Am. Automatic Loom, 198 U.S. 477; Com. Mutual Life v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602; Painter v. Railroad, 127 Mo.App. 253; In re Kimball, 155 N.Y. 862. (2) Activities......
-
State v. W.T. Rawleigh Co.
... ... by State against the W. T. Rawleigh Company. From an order ... setting aside service of ... 710; ... People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., ... 246 U.S. 79, 38 S.Ct. 233, 62 ... 218, 93 C. C. A. 504; ... Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co., 198 U.S ... John M ... Daniel, Atty. Gen., J. Ivey Humphrey and J. Ingram ... ...
-
FORD MOTOR CO. V. MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT AND "CORPORATE TAG JURISDICTION" IN THE PENNOYER ERA.
...the corporation in its business." Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U.S. 406 [(1903)]; Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co., 198 U.S. 477 [(1905)]; Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518] (1895)]. To give judgment in violation of that rule is to condemn the corporation unheard, and to i......