Flambeau Plastics Corp. v. King Bee Mfg. Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Citation24 Wis.2d 459,129 N.W.2d 237
PartiesFLAMBEAU PLASTICS CORP., a Wis. corporation, Respondent, v. KING BEE MANUFACTURING CO., an Ill. corporation, Appellant.
Decision Date30 June 1964

Page 237

129 N.W.2d 237
24 Wis.2d 459
FLAMBEAU PLASTICS CORP., a Wis. corporation, Respondent,
KING BEE MANUFACTURING CO., an Ill. corporation, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
June 30, 1964.

Hill, Miller & Quale, Baraboo, for appellant.

Langer, Cross & Langer and Howard F. Smiley, Baraboo, of counsel, for respondent.


Sec. 262.05, Stats., lists the situations in which a court of this state has jurisdiction over a person served in an action pursuant to sec. 262.06. Sec. 262.06 provides that a court of this state which has grounds for personal jurisdiction under sec. 262.05 may exercise it by service of summons in a manner specified in sec. 262.06.

Sec. 262.06(5), Stats., authorizes service upon a corporation outside the state, as appears to have been done in this case. Thus the question is whether grounds for personal jurisdiction exist under sec. 262.05. Defendant raises no constitutional objections, but contends that there are no grounds for personal jurisdiction as set forth in the statute.

The following facts appear in the complaint:

Page 239

Plaintiff is a Wisconsin corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing plastic goods at Baraboo, Wisconsin. [24 Wis.2d 462] Defendant is an Illinois corporation with plant and office in that state. By correspondence in the first quarter of 1961, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract by which the defendant agreed to purchase from plaintiff one million clearance light assemblies at $.089 per set, for a total price of $89,000. The items were to be delivered at such times and in such quantities as defendant should direct within 15 months. The items were to be manufactured in Baraboo, terms f. o. b. Baraboo or Milwaukee, and payment was to be made by defendant at plaintiff's Baraboo office. Defendant placed orders for a total of 37,569 sets. Plaintiff filled each order and defendant paid for the sets. Defendant failed to place any further orders.

As part of its obligations under the contract, plaintiff provided three molds for the manufacture of the sets; the parties agreed that out of the total contract price of $89,000, $16,700 was for the cost of the molds and that of the unit price of $.089, 1.67 cents were to be allocated to mold amortization. At the end of the 15-month period plaintiff, 'foregoing its cause of action against defendant for its loss of profits' on the sets not ordered, billed defendant for the remaining portion of the mold cost amortization, or $16,072.60. Defendant acknowledged its indebtedness to plaintiff in that amount and made payments totalling $900. Plaintiff brought this action for the balance of $15,172.60 plus interest.

Sec. 262.05(1)(d), Stats., provides that a court of this state has jurisdiction over a person served '(1) In any action whether arising within or without this state, against a defendant who when the action is commenced:

'* * *

'Is engaged in substantial and not isolated activities within this state, whether such activities are wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise.'

[24 Wis.2d 463] Plaintiff apparently concedes for the purpose of this appeal that defendant has not been engaged in activities in Wisconsin except as alleged in the complaint, but argues that defendant's action in entering into the contract alleged, with a Wisconsin resident and to be performed in Wisconsin, gave defendant a sufficient local status to subject it to personal jurisdiction of a Wisconsin court under sec. 262.05(1)(d), Stats. Because of the conclusion we reach on other points, it is unnecessary to decide this one. We pass it by, except to express some doubt whether the dealings alleged gave defendant sufficient contact with Wisconsin to be a foundation for personal jurisdiction in an action totally unrelated to the transactions alleged, even if the action were commenced while the transactions alleged could reasonably be said to be continuing.

Plaintiff further contends that the nature of the action as it appears from the allegations of the complaint, falls within one or more of the grounds of personal jurisdiction set forth in sec. 262.05(5)(a), (b), and (c), Stats.

Sec. 262.05(5), Stats., provides...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Maney v. Ratcliff, Civ. A. No. 75-C-1.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • 3 Septiembre 1975
    ...294 F.Supp. 779 (W.D.Wis. 1969); Pavalon v. Fishman, 30 Wis.2d 228, 140 N.W.2d 263 (1966); Flambeau Plastics Corp. v. King Bee Mfg. Co., 24 Wis.2d 459, 129 N.W.2d 237 (1964). At page 42 of the notes, Foster states that under § 262.05(4) "Three jurisdictional facts are required by this subse......
  • Rasmussen v. Gen. Motors Corp.., 2007AP35.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 1 Julio 2011
    ...defendants to the full extent consistent with the requisites of due process of law.” 22 Flambeau Plastics Corp. v. King Bee Mfg. Co., 24 Wis.2d 459, 464, 129 N.W.2d 237 (1964), overruled on other grounds by Pavalon v. Thomas Holmes Corp., 25 Wis.2d 540, 131 N.W.2d 331 (1964); see also Vt. Y......
  • Maglio & Kendro, Inc. v. Superior Enerquip Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 2 Junio 1989
    ...appeal dismissed, 402 U.S. 902, 91 S.Ct. 1379, 28 L.Ed.2d 643 (1971), quoting from Flambeau Plastics Corp. v. King Bee Manufacturing Co., 24 Wis.2d 459, 129 N.W.2d 237, 240 (1964), and in the landmark decision of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 ......
  • Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Const. Co., Inc., 78-1614
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 8 Junio 1979
    ...clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and no further. 1 Flambeau Plastics Corp. v. King Bee Mfg. Co., 24 Wis.2d 459, 464, 129 N.W.2d 237, 240 (1964). In these circumstances we are interpreting the statute, not ruling on its constitutionality, when we decide th......
  • 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