Fond Du Lac Cheese & Butter Co. v. Henningsen Produce Co.

• Decision Date: 07 December 1909
• Citation: 141 Wis. 70,123 N.W. 640
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: FOND DU LAC CHEESE & BUTTER CO. v. HENNINGSEN PRODUCE CO.

141 Wis. 70

123 N.W. 640

FOND DU LAC CHEESE & BUTTER CO.

v.HENNINGSEN PRODUCE CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 7, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Fond du Lac County; Chester A. Fowler, Judge.

Action by the Fond du Lac Cheese & Butter Company against the Henningsen Produce Company. From an order denying defendant's motion to set aside a judgment by default, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Plaintiff, a Wisconsin corporation, sued defendant, a corporation of, and located in, Montana, and not engaged in business in Wisconsin, for a consignment of butter ordered from the plaintiff by mail and delivered free on board cars at Fond du Lac, Wis. Service of summons was made upon A. P. Henningsen, secretary and manager of defendant corporation, at Fond du Lac. Judgment was entered by default. Defendant thereafter appeared specially, and moved upon affidavits to set aside and declare null said judgment, for the reason that no jurisdiction was acquired over the person of the defendant. Defendant's affidavit asserted that Henningsen was not in this state in connection with any business or interests of the corporation, but merely as a visitor. Affidavits of the plaintiff asserted that at the moment of service he had come to Fond du Lac for the purpose of adjusting and settling the controversy between plaintiff and defendant as to the latter's liability forming the basis of this action. The court in an opinion expressed his conclusion from the affidavits that the cause of action arose within the state of Wisconsin, and that A. P. Henningsen, admittedly secretary and manager of the defendant, was in this state for the purpose of adjusting, and was engaged in adjusting, said claim, and he was therefore in charge of and conducting the business of the corporation within this state. Accordingly order was entered denying the motion, from which order defendant appeals.H. E. Swett, for appellant.

T. L. Doyle, for respondent.

DODGE, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is, of course, true that the courts of this state cannot acquire jurisdiction over persons not present in the state except for the purpose of adjudicating with reference to property or status here located. This is an inherent limitation upon the power and jurisdiction of the state under our form of government, and cannot be escaped by reason of local statutes declaring such power. Jarvis v. Barrett, 14 Wis. 591;Smith v. Grady, 68 Wis. 215, 31 N. W. 477;Witt v. Meyer, 69 Wis. 595, 35 N. W. 25;Renier v. Hurlbut, 81 Wis. 24, 50 N. W. 783, 14 L. R. A. 562, 29 Am. St. Rep. 850;Moyer v. Koontz, 103 Wis. 22, 79 N. W. 50, 74 Am. St. Rep. 837;Maxcy v. McCord, 120 Wis. 571, 98 N. W. 529, 98 N. W. 923;Fitch v. Huntington, 125 Wis. 204, 102 N. W. 1066;Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565;Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 520, 15 Sup. Ct. 559, 39 L. Ed. 517. Hence, although our statute may in terms authorize a suit against a foreign corporation whenever the plaintiff resides in this state and the summons can be served upon some officer or agent of the corporation, those statutes must be ineffective to give jurisdiction unless the presence of such officer or agent within our borders amounts to presence of the corporation, for it is undoubtedly possible for an individual who incidentally is officer of a corporation to come into this state in his personal capacity without bringing the corporation with him. Goldey v. Morning News, supra; ...