Engineered Products v. Cleveland Crane and Engineering, 19746

• Decision Date: 07 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 19746,19746
• Citation: 262 S.C. 1,201 S.E.2d 921
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, Respondent, v. CLEVELAND CRANE AND ENGINEERING, a Division of McNeil Corporation and Engineering Sales of Charlotte, Inc., Defendants, of whom Cleveland Crane and Engineering is, Appellant.

Page 921

201 S.E.2d 921

262 S.C. 1

ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, Respondent, v. CLEVELAND CRANE AND ENGINEERING, a Division of McNeil

Corporation and Engineering Sales of Charlotte,

Inc., Defendants, of whom Cleveland

Crane and Engineering is, Appellant.

No. 19746.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 7, 1974.

Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, for appellant.

Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham, Greenville, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

This jurisdictional dispute arises out of an action filed by Engineered Products against Cleveland Crane and Engineering and against a codefendant, Engineering Sales of Charlotte, Inc., alleging amounts due on each of two separate contracts. This appeal involves only the question of the amenability of Cleveland Crane to suit in South Carolina by Engineered Products.

Engineered Products is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gower Manufacturing Company, both of which are South Carolina corporations with their offices and base operations in Greenville, South Carolina. Cleveland Crane is a division of McNeil Corporation, an Ohio corporation with principal offices in Akron, Ohio. Cleveland Crane has its principal office and manufacturing facility in Wickliffe, Ohio, with a limited office and manufacturing facility in Cucamonga, California. Engineering Sales is a North Carolina corporation with its principal and only place of business in Charlotte.

The complaint set out two causes of action. The first cause of action alleged that Engineered Products entered into a contract with Cleveland Crane, wherein Engineered Products would supply necessary material and install telestack racks in the Southwire Company warehouse in Carrollton, Georgia. Engineered Products further alleged that it performed, pursuant to the terms of the contract, but that Cleveland Crane has refused to pay $42,966.00 due and owing to it for such performance.

The second cause of action alleged that Engineered Products, through its agent Gower manufacturing Company, entered into a contract with Cleveland Crane, through its sales agent Engineering Sales, wherein Cleveland Crane agreed to design, fabricate and install four stacker cranes at Dan River Mills in Danville, Virginia. It was further alleged that Cleveland Crane failed to perform according to the contract, thereby creating delays and causing damages to Engineered Products in the amount of $11,326.00.

Cleveland Crane entered a special appearance and objected to the jurisdiction of the court upon the grounds that it does no business, has no agents or servants, and owns no property in the State of South Carolina, nor has it engaged in any other conduct or activity which would subject it to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State. Engineering Sales also appeared specially to object to the court's jurisdiction. In response, Engineered Products a motion requesting an order holding that the court did have jurisdiction over both defendants and ordering them to answer the complaint. All parties filed affidavits in support of their respective positions.

After conducting a hearing on the matter, the trial court issued its order holding that both Cleveland Crane and Engineering Sales were subject to the jurisdiction of the South Carolina courts, from which order Cleveland Crane has appealed. Engineering Sales has not appealed.

We proceed to separately consider each cause of action in order to determine whether with regard to either, or both, Cleveland Crane has sufficient minimum contacts with South Carolina such that the maintenance of this suit in this State will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The question of in personam jurisdiction over a foreign corporation is one which must be resolved upon the facts of each particular case. The decision of the trial court should be affirmed unless unsupported by the evidence or influenced by error of law. See, e.g., Triplett v. R. M. Wade and Co., 200 S.E.2d 375 (S.C., Filed Nov. 7, 1973).

With reference to the Southwire project, from which arose the first cause of action, the affidavits submitted to the trial judge disclose that Cleveland Crane was the prime contractor and Engineered Products was a subcontractor. For a stated consideration, Engineered Products agreed to fabricate and install telestack racks in the Southwire Company warehouse in Carrollton, Georgia. At its facilities in Greenville, South Carolina, employees of Engineered Products put in all the details to the general plans and specifications furnished by Cleveland Crane, and were completely responsible for completion of the plans and specifications to be used in the project. They also formulated and programmed the installation method to be used, and reviewed and approved the final shop drawings to be used by employees of Gower to fabricate the racks.

The actual manufacturing of the racks was performed...