Gray v. Montgomery Ward, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1957 |
| Citation | 317 P.2d 114,155 Cal.App.2d 55 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | William T. GRAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY WARD, Inc., a corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 5509. |
James E. Kelly and Elber H. Tilson, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Head, Jacobs & Jacobs, Santa Ana, for respondent Duro-Metal Products Co.
Plaintiff William T. Gray filed an action for damages for breach of warranty and negligence on September 3, 1953, against Montgomery Ward Inc., a corporation, and several fictitiously named defendants. Plaintiff alleged the sale to him in October, 1952, of a bench power saw and sanding disc attachment by Montgomery Ward, Inc., and further alleged that said sanding disc attachment was defective and was negligently manufactured by defendants, including Doe Company, a corporation, resulting in the said sanding disc exploding and disintegrating and causing injury to plaintiff's face and eye on or about December 3, 1952.
Defendant Montgomery Ward, Inc. answered and denied breach of warranty or negligence. Plaintiff was unable to personally serve an agent of Duro-Metal Products Company, an Illinois corporation, so pursuant to Corporations Code sections 6501 and 6502 service of summons and complaint was made on Duro-Metal Products Company, sued as the fictitiously named defendant Doe Company, a corporation, by delivery of the same to the Secretary of State of the State of California. Defendant Duro-Metal Products Company filed a special appearance and notice of motion to set aside service of summons and complaint on the ground that said defendant was not 'doing business' in the state of California either at the time of the accident complained of or at the time of the service of process. The trial court granted the motion to quash and set aside the service of summons and complaint on Duro-Metal Products Company, an Illinois corporation, and the plaintiff appeals from that order.
The matter was heard upon the affidavits of counsel for plaintiff and for Duro-Metal Products Company and the affidavit of the assistant secretary and treasurer of Duro-Metal Products Company, and the affidavit and deposition of E. Bellezzo, the manufacturer's agent handling Duro-Metal Products in California. The company denied doing business in California or having any agent, servant or employee or other representative in the state of California at all times pertinent to this action. Mr. Bellezzo, in his deposition, testified that from January 1, 1955, until the taking of the deposition June 27, 1955, he was a sales representative for Duro-Metal Products Company. He described himself as a manufacturer's agent with a territory covering the states of California, Oregon, Washington and Arizona. He stated that he called upon dealers and prospective dealers in the state of California. New dealers were appointed upon his recommendation. Defendant's head office was in Illinois and before making a recommendation, Bellezzo first checked the proposed retail dealer's credit, his type of distribution, the type of salesman employed, and the general manner in which the applicant conducted his business. Bellezzo testified that once a dealer for Duro was appointed, he called on that dealer regularly urging him to stock with and promote the sales of Duro-Metal Products. He occasionally delivered catalogues and brochures furnished by Duro-Metal Products Company to the dealers. Mr. Bellezzo was under the supervision of a Mr. Brady, sales manager for Duro-Metal Products Company, who maintained an office in the state of Illinois, where he remained but who forwarded information regarding sales and promotion of defendant's products to Bellezzo in California. Orders for merchandise were sometimes given to him personally and others were mailed directly to the company but in either event he received a commission. Such commissions constituted the sole consideration paid to Bellezzo by Duro-Metal Products Company. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LD Reeder Contractors of Ariz. v. Higgins Industries
...in seeing that the assembling was done properly." It furnished equipment, material, and made annual visits. In Gray v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., supra 155 Cal.App.2d 55, 317 P.2d 115, the manufacturer's agent investigated and recommended dealers to the defendant Duro-Metal Products Company; di......
-
Henry R. Jahn & Son, Inc. v. Superior Court In and For San Mateo County
...to local process.' Eclipse Fuel etc. Co. v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.2d 736, 738, 307 P.2d 739, 741; see also, Gray v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., 155 Cal.App.2d 55, 317 P.2d 114; McClanahan v. Trans-America Ins. Co., 149 Cal.App.2d 171, 172, 307 P.2d 1023; Jeter v. Austin Trailer Equipment C......
-
Cosper v. Smith & Wesson Arms Co.
...for Smith & Wesson through a course of regularly-established and systematic business activity as were deemed in Gray v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., 155 Cal.App.2d 55, 317 P.2d 114, to constitute 'doing business' in the state by the foreign corporation there involved. These services may reasonabl......
-
Gill v. Surgitool Inc.
...for Smith & Wesson through a course of regularly-established and systematic business activity as were deemed in Gray v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., 155 Cal.App.2d 55, 317 P.2d 114, to constitute 'doing business' in the state by the foreign corporation there involved. These services may reasonabl......