Flexner v. Farson
| Decision Date | 07 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 101,101 |
| Citation | 39 S.Ct. 97,63 L.Ed. 250,248 U.S. 289 |
| Parties | FLEXNER v. FARSON et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. J. S. Laurent, of Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 289-291 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Harry P. Weber and George W. Miller, both of Chicago, Ill., for defendants in error.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff in error upon a judgment for money rendered by a Kentucky Court. The declaration alleges that the transaction in respect of which the judgment was rendered took place at Louisville, Kentucky, and that at that time the defendants were doing business there as partners through Washington Flexner, who was and continued to be their agent until the time of this suit. It further alleges that the defendants were non-residents and that the service of summons of the Kentucky suit was made upon Washington Flexner in accordance with a Kentucky statute (Civ. Code Prac. § 51) authorizing it to be made in that way. The defendant William Farson was the only one served with process in the present action and he pleaded that the defendants in the former suit did not reside in Kentucky, were not served with process and did not appear; that Washington Flexner was not their agent at the time of service upon him; that the Kentucky statute relied upon was unconstitutional; that the Kentucky Court had no jurisdiction, and that its judgment was void under the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff demurred to the pleas, and stood upon his demurrer when it was overruled, whereupon judgment was entered for the defendants. There was an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State on the ground that the Court below did not give full faith and credit to the Kentucky judgment and erred in holding the Kentucky statute as to service unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed the judg ment below. 268 Ill. 435, 109 N. E. 327, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 810. The same errors are alleged here.
It is argued that the pleas tacitly admit that Washington Flexner was agent of the firms at the time of the transaction sued upon in Kentucky, and the Kentucky statute is construed as purporting to make him agent to receive service in suits arising out of the business done in that State. On this construction it is said that the defendants by doing business in the State consented to be bound by the service prescribed. The analogy of suits against insurance companies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Severn v. Adidas Sportschuhfabriken
...that territory so as to subject either persons or property to its decisions.' (95 U.S. at p. 722. See also Flexner v. Farson (1919) 248 U.S. 289, 293, 39 S.Ct. 97, 63 L.Ed. 250.) Under such concepts of jurisdiction there was no power to exercise judicial jurisdiction unless the defendant wa......
-
Williams v. State of North Carolina
...394, 37 S.Ct. 152, 61 L.Ed. 386; Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Cherry, 244 U.S. 25, 29, 37 S.Ct. 492, 493, 61 L.Ed. 966; Flexner v. Farson, 248 U.S. 289, 39 S.Ct. 97, 63 L.Ed. 250. 8 Sec. 9460, Nev.Comp.L.1929, as amended L.1931, p. 161, supra, note 3. 9 The fact that a stay in a state is not fo......
-
McCoy v. Siler
...corporations altogether, and therefore could establish this obligation as a condition to letting them in." Flexner v. Farson, 248 U.S. 289, 293, 39 S.Ct. 97, 98, 63 L.Ed. 250. Mr. Austin Scott has analyzed the nonresident motorist statutes in the same manner and has said: "It is surely unfo......
-
Insull v. New York World-Telegram Corporation, 58 C 108
...state action which subjects non-resident business proprietors, individual or corporate, to such jurisdiction (Flexner v. Farson, 1919, 248 U.S. 289, 39 S.Ct. 97, 63 L.Ed. 250; Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 1935, 294 U.S. 623, 55 S.Ct. 553, 79 L.Ed. 1097; International Shoe Co. v. Washi......