Davis v. Farmers Equity Co, CO-OP

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRANDEIS
Citation43 S.Ct. 556,262 U.S. 312,67 L.Ed. 996
PartiesDAVIS, Director General of Railroads, v. FARMERS'EQUITY CO
Docket NumberCO-OP,No. 270
Decision Date21 May 1923

262 U.S. 312
43 S.Ct. 556
67 L.Ed. 996
DAVIS, Director General of Railroads,

v.

FARMERS' CO-OP. EQUITY CO.

No. 270.
Argued April 17, 18, 1923.
Decided May 21, 1923.

Page 313

Messrs. Gardiner Lathrop and Homer W. Davis, both of Chicago, Ill., and William T. Faricy and Thomas F. Quinn, both of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Morton Barrows, of St. Paul, Minn., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

A statute of Minnesota (Laws 1913, c. 218, p. 274; General Statutes 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

Page 314

with summons by delivering a copy thereof to such agent.'

Whether this statute, as construed and applied, violates the federal Constitution, is the only question for decision.

The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company is a Kansas corporation engaged in interstate transportation. It does not own or operate any railroad in Minnesota; but it maintains there an agent for solicitation of traffic. In April, 1920, suit was brought by another Kansas corporation in a court of Minnesota against the Director General of Railroads, as agent, on a cause of action arising under federal control. Service was made pursuant to the Minnesota statute.1 The recovery sought was for loss of grain shipped under a bill of lading issued by the carrier in Kansas for transportation over its line from one point in that state to another. So far as appears the transaction was in no way connected with Minnesota or with the soliciting agency located there. Defendant appeared specially, claimed that, as to it, the statute authorizing service violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the commerce clause, and moved to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. The motion was denied. After appropriate proceeding, the trial court entered final judgment for plaintiff, its judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota (150 Minn. 534, 186 N. W. 130), and the case is here on writ of error under section 237 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1214).

Page 315

Solicitation of traffic by railroads, in states remote from their lines, is a recognized part of the business of interstate transportation. McCall v. California, 136 U. S. 104, 10 Sup. Ct. 881, 34 L. Ed. 391. As construed by the highest court of Minnesota, this statute compels every foreign interstate carrier to submit to suit there as a condition of maintaining a soliciting agent within the state. Jurisdiction is not limited to suits arising out of business transacted within Minnesota. Compare Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Co., 257 U. S. 213, 42 Sup. Ct. 84, 66 L. Ed. 201; Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Clarendon Boat Oar Co., Inc., 257 U. S., 533, 42 Sup. Ct. 210, 66 L. Ed. 354; Chipman, Limited, v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co., 251 U. S. 373, 40 Sup. Ct. 172, 64 L. Ed. 314. It is asserted, whatever the nature of the cause of action, wherever it may have arisen, and although the plaintiff is not, and never has been, a resident of the state. Armstrong Co. v. New York Central R. R. Co., 129 Minn. 104, 151 N. W. 917, L. R. A. 1916E, 232, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 335; Langergren v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 130 Minn. 35, 152 N. W. 1102; Rishmiller v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 134 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 obnoxious to the commerce clause. Compare Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U. S. 197, 203, 35 Sup. Ct. 57, 59 L. Ed. 193.

That the claims against interstate carriers for personal injuries and for loss and damage of freight are numerous; that the amounts demanded are large; that in many cases carriers deem it imperative, or advisable, to leave the determination of their liability to the courts; that litigation in states and jurisdictions remote from that in which the cause of action arose entails absence of employees from their customary occupations; and that this impairs efficiency in operation, and causes, directly and indirectly, heavy expense to the carriers—these are matters of common knowledge. Facts, of which we, also, take judicial notice, indicate that the burden upon interstate

Page 316

carriers imposed specifically by the statute here assailed is a heavy one; and that the resulting obstruction to commerce must be serious.2 During federal control absences of e ployees incident to such litigation were found, by the Director General, to interfere so much with the physical operation of the railroads, that he issued General Order No. 18 (and 18A) which required suit to be brought in the county or district where the cause of action arose or where the plaintiff resided at the time it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
210 practice notes
  • Southern Machine Company v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., No. 17959.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 20, 1968
    ...state, assumption of in personam jurisdiction could raise serious Commerce Clause questions. Davis v. Farmers Co-Operative Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 556, 67 L.Ed. 996 (1923). But, since the Tennessee statute requires that the cause of action arise from the business transaction and ......
  • Frene v. Louisville Cement Co., No. 8009.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 25, 1943
    ...Golf Club, 1922, 97 N.J.L. 538, 117 A. 607. 1 205 U.S. 530, 27 S.Ct. 595, 51 L.Ed. 916. 2 Cf. Davis v. Farmers' Co-op. Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 556, 27 L. Ed. 3 227 U.S. 218, 33 S.Ct. 245, 57 L.Ed. 486. 4 255 U.S. 565, 41 S.Ct. 446, 65 L.Ed. 788, affirming 224 Mass. 379, 113 N.E. ......
  • Canada Malting Co v. Paterson Steamships British Empire Grain Co v. Same Starnes v. Same, Nos. 487-489
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1932
    ...362, 364. Compare Neptune Steam Nav. Co. v. Sullivan Timber Co. (D. C.) 37 F. 159. 6 Compare Davis v. Farmers' Co-operative Equity Co., 262 U. S. 312, 43 S. Ct. 556, 67 L. Ed. 996; Logan v. Bank of Scotland (1906) 1 K. B. 141; Socie te du Gaz de Paris v. Armateurs Francais (1926) Sess. Cas.......
  • Louis Liggett Co v. Lee 12 8212 13, 1933, No. 301
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1933
    ...592, 30 L.Ed. 694; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622, 626, 23 S.Ct. 229, 47 L.Ed. 336; Davis v. Farmers' Co-operative Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 556, 67 L.Ed. 996; Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 45 S.Ct. 324, 69 L.Ed. 623, 38 A.L.R. 286. Cases like Western Union Telegraph ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
210 cases
  • Southern Machine Company v. Mohasco Industries, Inc., No. 17959.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 20, 1968
    ...state, assumption of in personam jurisdiction could raise serious Commerce Clause questions. Davis v. Farmers Co-Operative Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 556, 67 L.Ed. 996 (1923). But, since the Tennessee statute requires that the cause of action arise from the business transaction and ......
  • Frene v. Louisville Cement Co., No. 8009.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 25, 1943
    ...Golf Club, 1922, 97 N.J.L. 538, 117 A. 607. 1 205 U.S. 530, 27 S.Ct. 595, 51 L.Ed. 916. 2 Cf. Davis v. Farmers' Co-op. Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 556, 27 L. Ed. 3 227 U.S. 218, 33 S.Ct. 245, 57 L.Ed. 486. 4 255 U.S. 565, 41 S.Ct. 446, 65 L.Ed. 788, affirming 224 Mass. 379, 113 N.E. ......
  • Canada Malting Co v. Paterson Steamships British Empire Grain Co v. Same Starnes v. Same, Nos. 487-489
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1932
    ...362, 364. Compare Neptune Steam Nav. Co. v. Sullivan Timber Co. (D. C.) 37 F. 159. 6 Compare Davis v. Farmers' Co-operative Equity Co., 262 U. S. 312, 43 S. Ct. 556, 67 L. Ed. 996; Logan v. Bank of Scotland (1906) 1 K. B. 141; Socie te du Gaz de Paris v. Armateurs Francais (1926) Sess. Cas.......
  • Louis Liggett Co v. Lee 12 8212 13, 1933, No. 301
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1933
    ...592, 30 L.Ed. 694; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622, 626, 23 S.Ct. 229, 47 L.Ed. 336; Davis v. Farmers' Co-operative Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 556, 67 L.Ed. 996; Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 45 S.Ct. 324, 69 L.Ed. 623, 38 A.L.R. 286. Cases like Western Union Telegraph ......
  • 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