Gloeser v. Dollar Steamship Lines, Inc

Decision Date05 October 1934
Docket Number29,890
Citation256 N.W. 666,192 Minn. 376
PartiesANNA B. GLOESER v. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINES, INC
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff while a passenger on one of defendant's steamships. Defendant moved to set aside service of the summons upon the ground that it is not licensed to do business in this state and has no agent here authorized to accept service of process. The motion was denied, Hugo O. Hanft, Judge, and defendant appealed. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Corporation -- foreign -- "doing business" in state -- jurisdiction of state court.

1. To obtain jurisdiction over a foreign corporation operation railways or steamship lines outside of this state, but none in this state, where no property of the corporation is attached or seized or present in this state, the corporation must be doing business here of such a nature and character as to warrant the inference that it has subjected itself to the local jurisdiction and is by its duly authorized officer or agent here present.

Corporation -- foreign -- "doing business" in state -- agents.

2. The fact that a soliciting agent or agency, doing a general solicitation business in this state for a number of foreign railways and steamship companies, was employed here to solicit passenger traffic on defendant's ocean steamships and incidentally to sell, but not to issue, tickets for ocean voyages on defendant's boats, was not a sufficient doing of business by defendant in this state to subject it to the jurisdiction of the state court. The soliciting agency here in question was doing its own business in its own office, and defendant maintained no office and had no employes here.

Commerce -- interstate -- regulation -- jurisdiction of state court.

3. Where jurisdiction is obtained by the state court by attachment or seizure of property of defendant located in the state, under valid state law, or where defendant is doing business in the state in such a way as to have subjected itself to the local jurisdiction, and service of process is made upon an authorized agent there located, the question then is not strictly one of initial jurisdiction, but is whether the prosecution of the suit will so unreasonably interfere with interstate commerce that the state court has no right to proceed and should not be permitted to proceed further therein. Whether there is such interference with interstate commerce depends on the fact situation in each such case.

Commerce -- interstate -- regulation -- residence of plaintiff.

4. The fact that the plaintiff is a resident of the state in which suit is brought has weight in determining whether the suit will unreasonably interfere with interstate commerce, but can generally have no bearing on the question of whether the defendant corporation was present and doing such business in the state as to have subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the state court.

Corporation -- foreign -- "doing business" in state -- agents.

5. Examination of the numerous cases cited for the plaintiff shows that in all the cases where service on an officer or agent of a foreign corporation was sustained the corporation was doing a much more extensive and diverse business in the state where suit was brought than is here shown or claimed.

Corporation -- foreign -- "doing business" in state -- jurisdiction of state court.

6. The defendant in this case was not doing business in this state of such a nature and character as to subject it to the jurisdiction of the state court, and the attempted service of the summons on its soliciting agent was not due process of law, and jurisdiction was not obtained.

J H. Mulally, for appellant.

O'Brien Horn & Stringer, for respondent.

OPINION

I. M. OLSEN, Justice.

Defendant appeals from an order of the district court of Ramsey county denying its motion for an order setting aside the service of the summons herein.

Defendant is a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal office and place of business in San Francisco, California. It is engaged in operating ocean-going steamships, in passenger traffic, between ports on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and to foreign countries. It has no property in this state and does no business in this state except as hereinafter stated. It is not licensed to transact business in this state and has no agent appointed, authorized to accept service of process, as required by 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, §§ 7493, 7494. None of its officers or general agents reside or are located here. It maintains no office or place of business here. It has no employes here. The summons was served upon an employe of the Travel Bureau of the First National Bank of St. Paul.

Plaintiff, a resident then and now of Ramsey county in this state, was a passenger on one of defendant's steamships on a trip from New York to San Francisco, via the Panama Canal, and claims to have suffered personal injury while a passenger on said ship by reason of the negligence of one of defendant's employes.

Defendant appeared specially and moved for an order setting aside the service of the summons.

The manager of the Travel Bureau, called as a witness by the plaintiff, testified that the primary function of the bureau was to obtain business for the various railway and steamship lines represented by it, either through personal solicitation, by mail, telephone, or by advertising in newspapers and periodicals; that only passenger business was solicited; that it acted as agent for these lines in soliciting passenger business and selling tickets; that in the case of this defendant the bureau was not supplied with any tickets for sale by it, but obtained such tickets from the defendant's Chicago office, when ordered and paid for by a customer. Accommodations and reservations for passage, if applied for, were obtained by wire or correspondence. When a ticket was ordered the bureau collected the full amount of the ticket and remitted to the defendant, less the commission, and the defendant sent the ticket to the bureau for delivery to the purchaser. The bureau dealt in this way with defendant's Chicago office. Other services of the bureau consisted in furnishing travel information and literature to customers or inquirers and assisting in obtaining visas on passports.

The plaintiff, by affidavit, deposes that she did consult the Travel Bureau "relative to the accommodations, times for passage, expenses, arrangements for tickets and baggage and other necessary and pertinent facts relative to a possible trip from New York through the said Panama Canal to one of the Western ports of the United States," and that employes of the bureau offered to sell her a ticket on the defendant's line from New York for such a voyage, but that her plans for the trip were not completed and she did not purchase any ticket from the bureau. Later she went to New York and there purchased a ticket from the defendant for the voyage. We have then a case where no contract was entered into in this state and where the cause of action did not arise in this state.

There is also an affidavit by plaintiff's counsel stating that the bureau held itself out as selling steamship tickets and had the words "STEAMSHIP TICKETS" on a window of its office, and held itself out as representing railroads and steamship lines; that the Round America Cruise could start at any main line railroad station and the fare be made to include ticket to New York and home again from California.

The Travel Bureau was acting under a written contract with defendant reading as follows:

"I, Travel Bureau, First National Bank, hereby

(Name of Applicant) make application to represent the Dollar Steamship Lines Inc. Ltd. as a Sub-Agent

(Name of Steamship Company)

(State whether 'Sub-Agent' or 'Tour Organizer') located at 115 East Fourth Street, St. Paul, Minn.

(Street and Number)

(City or Town)

(State)

AND AGREE, in the event of my appointment, to conform to the Rules of the said Steamship Company, copy of which I have received and read and hereby agree to, and to conform to all instructions from and rules which may be issued by the said Steamship Company;

"I FURTHER AGREE to hold in trust for the said Steamship Company any steamship passage tickets and orders, railroad tickets and orders, money orders or other forms supplied to me for sale, and to sell the same only at the rates quoted by said Steamship Company, and when sold I agree to keep and hold the proceeds of sale, and also any deposits and any funds collected for the account of the said Steamship Company in trust and that I will remit the proceeds of sale and all deposits and all funds collected for the account of the said Steamship Company to the said Steamship Company immediately received and that I will return all unsold tickets and orders upon demand;

"I FURTHER AGREE that the relationship set up between me and said Steamship Company is not that of debtor and creditor but of trustee and beneficiary, and that all funds collected for the account of the said Steamship Company and all funds derived from the sale of tickets and orders are the Steamship Company's property and do not belong to me;

"I FURTHER AGREE to become responsible for each ticket and order delivered to me and to indemnify and save the said Steamship Company harmless from loss whether occasioned by forgery or otherwise;

"I ALSO AGREE NOT TO transfer or sell the agency appointment of said Steamship Company without its consent and that I will report without delay any change that may affect the agency;

"I FURTHER AGREE THAT UNDER ANY BONDING PLAN WHICH THE SAID STEAMSHIP COMPANY MAY...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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