Gill v. Fairchild Hiller Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3053. |
| Parties | Patricia-Anne Hillman GILL, Individually and for her minor children and Patricia-Anne Hillman Gill and J. Peter Williamson as Co-Administrators of the Estate of L. Milton Gill, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. FAIRCHILD HILLER CORP. and Wilcox Electric Company, Inc. and Collins Radio Co. and Kollsman Instrument Corporation, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America and Northeast Airlines, Inc., Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
Stebbins & Bradley, David H. Bradley, Hanover, N. H., for plaintiffs.
Sulloway, Hollis, Godfrey & Soden, Lawrence E. Spellman, and Martin L. Gross, Concord, N. H., for Fairchild Hiller Corp.
Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls, Robert L. Chiesa, Manchester, N. H., for Wilcox Electric Company, Inc.
Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls, Charles J. Dunn, Manchester, N. H., for Collins Radio Co.
Orr & Reno, Charles F. Leahy, Concord, N. H., for Kollsman Instrument Corporation.
David A. Brock, U. S. Atty., Concord, N. H., for United States of America.
Upton, Sanders & Upton, Frederic K. Upton, Concord, N. H., for Northeast Airlines, Inc.
RULING AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
The motions are denied.
The complaint, as amended, alleges jurisdiction based upon NH RSA ch. 300 § 14 (1966) which provides:
Appointment of Process Agent by Foreign Corporation. If a foreign corporation makes a contract with a resident of New Hampshire to be performed in whole or in part by either party in New Hampshire, or if such foreign corporation commits a tort in whole or in part in New Hampshire against a resident of New Hampshire, such acts shall be deemed to be doing business in New Hampshire by such foreign corporation and shall be deemed equivalent to the appointment by such foreign corporation of the secretary of the state of New Hampshire and his successors to be its true and lawful attorney upon whom may be served all lawful process in any actions or proceedings against such foreign corporation arising from or growing out of such contract or tort. The making of such contract or the committing of such tort shall be deemed to be the agreement of such foreign corporation that any process against it which is so served upon the secretary of state shall be of the same legal force and effect as if served on the foreign corporation at its principal place of business in the state or country where it is incorporated and according to the law of that state or country. (Emphasis added.)
The defendants take the position that before the plaintiffs can obtain jurisdiction they must show that the defendants had certain minimum business contacts with New Hampshire and that the maintenance of these actions in this forum will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Grace v. Procter & Gamble Company, 95 N.H. 74, 57 A.2d 619 (1948).
The complaint alleges that defendant Fairchild Hiller Corp. manufactured the aircraft involved in the crash which gives rise to this suit; and that the other defendants manufactured instruments and/or parts that were an integral part of the aircraft. Defendants' assertion that a preliminary evidentiary hearing is necessary before the question of jurisdiction can be decided would certainly apply if we were concerned with NH RSA ch. 300 § 11 (1966).1 The case of Grace v. Procter & Gamble Company, supra, gave full effect to the holding of International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), which marked the beginning, not the end, of the reach of so-called longarm statute jurisdiction. The case of Roy v. North American Newspaper Alliance, 106 N.H. 92, 205 A.2d 844 (1964), continues the expansion of jurisdiction started with Grace and confirms the opinion of the First Circuit Court in Elliott & Sons Company v. Nuodex Products Company, 243 F.2d 116, 124 (1st Cir. 1957), that the New Hampshire statute has been interpreted as "exerting jurisdiction over foreign corporations up to the constitutional limit."
In Roy, the New Hampshire court noted:
In order that conflict of laws in the twentieth century does not develop the rigor mortis that set in with Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 24 L.Ed. 565, it is important that we do not unnecessarily erect constitutional fictions and barriers `for snarling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Centronics Data Computer Corp. v. MANNESMANN, AG
...Mulhern v. Holland America Cruises, supra, 393 F.Supp. 1298; Look v. Hughes Tool Co., supra, 367 F.Supp. 1003; Gill v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., 312 F.Supp. 916 (D.N.H.1970); Seymour v. Parke, Davis & Co., supra, 294 F.Supp. 1257. Under the usual test, the state must have "sufficient contacts......
-
Bunch v. Lancair Intern., Inc.
...Agusta, 553 F.Supp. 328 (E.D.Pa.1982), Miller v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 302 F.Supp. 174 (E.D.Ky.1969), Gill v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., 312 F.Supp. 916 (D.N.H.1970), and Vibratech, Inc. v. Frost, 291 Ga.App. 133, 661 S.E.2d 185 (2008). Bunch argues that these cases generally stand for t......
-
DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc.
...Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1980); Blum v. Kawaguchi, Ltd., 331 F.Supp. 216 (D.Neb.1971); Gill v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., 312 F.Supp. 916 (D.N.H.1970); Certisimo v. Heidelberg Co., 122 N.J.Super. 1, 298 A.2d 298 (Law Div.1972), aff'd, 124 N.J.Super. 251, 306 A.2d 79 A cl......
-
Kenny v. Alexson Equipment Co.
...Kawaguchi, Ltd., 331 F.Supp. 216 (D.Neb.1971); Smiley v. Gemini Investment Corp., 333 F.Supp. 1047 (W.D.Pa.1971); Gill v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., 312 F.Supp. 916 (D.N.H.1970); Certisimo v. Heidelberg Co., 122 N.J.Super. 1, 298 A.2d 298 (Law Div.1972), aff'd, 124 N.J.Super. 251, 306 A.2d 79 ......