Florio v. Powder Power Tool Corp.
Decision Date | 26 October 1956 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. 19911. |
Parties | Mario FLORIO, a minor, by his next friends and natural parents, Cesare Florio and Mary Florio, and Cesare Florio and Mary Florio, in their own right, v. POWDER-POWER TOOL CORP. and General Equipment Company, Incorporated. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Morris Passon, Philadelphia, Pa., for General Equipment Co.
John J. McDevitt, III, Philadelphia, Pa., for Powder-Power Tool Corp. GRIM, District Judge.
On December 4, 1954, an employee of a building contractor, while working in Wallingford, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, was using a "drive-it" tool for the purpose of driving studs into a steel beam. As he was doing this a metal stud was ejected from the tool in such a way that it struck plaintiff, Mario Florio, on the head and caused serious injury to his brain. Powder-Power Tool Corp., an Oregon corporation, made the "drive-it" tool and sold it to General Equipment Company, Incorporated, a Maryland corporation with a place of business in Pennsylvania, which resold it. In this diversity action, Florio, a Pennsylvania citizen, has sued both Powder-Power Tool Corp. and General Equipment Company, averring that both defendants were negligent in providing a tool which was dangerous, defective and not fit for the purpose intended.
Defendant General Equipment Company, Incorporated is making no contention at the present time, but defendant Powder-Power Tool Corp., which is not registered to do business in Pennsylvania, has filed a motion to dismiss the action against it, contending that no valid service of process has been made on it.
Plaintiff attempted to make service upon Powder-Power Tool Corp., in this action by having process served upon the Secretary of the Commonwealth under Section 1011, subd. B of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1933, as amended:
15 P.S. § 2852-1011, subd. B.
Plaintiff contends that this method of service was correct for the reason that Powder-Power, a foreign corporation not registered in Pennsylvania, subjected itself to the provisions of Section 1011, subd. B by having done business in Pennsylvania within the statutory definition of "doing business" enacted in Section 22 of the Act of September 26, 1951, P.L. 1475, which added, after Section 1011, subd. B of the Business Corporation Law, a new subsection C, as follows:
Powder-Power contends that it has not done and is not now doing business in Pennsylvania as that term is defined in subsection C. If this contention is correct, Section 1011, subd. B does not apply and service upon the Secretary of the Commonwealth is not valid service upon Powder-Power.
Powder-Power Tool Corp. has sold its tools in Pennsylvania to General Equipment Company, Incorporated, its exclusive dealer in Pennsylvania, and to no other person or corporation in Pennsylvania. Its sales into Pennsylvania from 1952 to 1955, the year when the suit was started, have been:
1952 $ 2,647.89 1953 $22,596.46 1954 $29,664.82 1955 $17,662.14
There is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Florio v. Powder Power Tool Corp.
...it was not doing business in Pennsylvania and therefore could not lawfully be served with process. The court below granted Powder Power's motion, 1956, 148 F.Supp. 843, and the appeal at bar The case involves the two questions referred to in our decision in Partin v. Michaels Art Bronze Co.......
-
Chassis-Trak, Inc. v. Federated Purchaser, Inc.
...plaintiff instituted an action against the defendant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 148 F.Supp. 843, and summons was served upon the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, pursuant to the Pennsylvania statute, supra, under F.R.Civ.P. 4(......