Grobark v. Addo Mach. Co.
Decision Date | 20 March 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 34942,34942 |
Citation | 16 Ill.2d 426,158 N.E.2d 73 |
Parties | John G. GROBARK et al., Appellants, v. ADDO MACHINE COMPANY, Inc., Appellee. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
John A. Cook, Chicago, and W. F. Levander, Des Plaines, for appellants.
Chapman & Cutler, Chicago (Keehn Landis, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
The plaintiffs, John G. Grobark and John C. Grobark, filed their complaint in the superior court of Cook County against Addo Machine Company, Inc., herein referred to as Addo, and John P. Berg and Robert Hanson (who are not parties to this appeal). The plaintiff asked judgment for $50,000 against the three defendants and $25,000 as punitive damages against the individual defendants.
Personal service was obtained on Addo in New York City by the sheriff of New York County. The plaintiffs assert jurisdiction over Addo under sections 16 and 17 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 110, pars. 16, 17) as a case arising out of the transaction of business within the State of Illinois.
Addo filed a special appearance for the sole and limited purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court upon the ground that it had not transacted business within the State of Illinois, and that the matters complained of took place prior to January 1, 1956, the effective date of the amendatory act. The court, upon the complaint, special appearance and certain affidavits, entered an order quashing the service of summons upon Addo. Upon appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the order of the superior court upon the ground that Addo was not transacting business in the State of Illinois and, therefore, did not submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of Illinois. We granted leave to appeal. Subsequent to the order of the trial court, this court decided, in Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 382, 143 N.E.2d 673, the 1955 amendments to sections 16 and 17 apply to a cause of action brought after January 1, 1956, the effective date thereof, even though the action arose prior to such date.
From the allegations of the complaint and the affidavits submitted, it appears that from 1939 to 1953, plaintiffs purchased Addo-X adding machines from Addo for resale. In so doing, they developed a list of customers and dealers which, by the year 1953, had considerable trade value. In 1951 and 1952, because of the volume of plaintiffs' business, Addo made various efforts to obtain the names of plaintiffs' customers and dealers, and its president carried on negotiations with plaintiffs in Chicago to make them exclusive distributors of its adding machines for the Greater Chicago Trading Area, which constituted most of Illinois. Plaintiffs entered into a contract with Addo by which they were appointed its exclusive distributors for such area. The terms of the contract were contained in a letter, dated May 19, 1953, from Addo in New York City, to plaintiffs in Chicago, by which plaintiffs were given the right to purchase the machines at a stated discount from list price, with an additional five per cent discount to provide for dealer development. The letter provided for the cancellation of the exclusive distributorship by either party on three months notice, but in the event of cancellation, plaintiffs were to be given the privilege of continuing to purchase the machines on a dealer basis for a reasonable time. After considerable importuning, on July 24, 1953, plaintiffs gave Addo their list of customers and dealers upon assurance that Addo would fully protect their rights therein.
The complaint further alleges that plaintiffs thereafter entered into various sales efforts in the promotion and sale of Addo's product whereby valuable accounts were obtained; hat from 1953 to 1955, plaintiffs purchased machines for resale in Illinois having a retail value in excess of $150,000; that on July 1, 1955, Addo concelled plaintiffs' exclusive distributorship as of October 1, 1955, and appointed two of plaintiffs' former dealers, the individual defendants, Berg and Hanson, as its distributors, effective August 1, 1955, two months in advance of such effective termination date; that prior to such termination, Addo wrongfully used the plaintiffs' customer and dealer lists by giving them to its newly appointed distributors for the purpose of circularizing their appointment and obtaining plaintiffs' customers and dealers; and that on January 20, 1956, Addo refused to fill any orders of plaintiffs, despite the agreement made that they might continue to purchase machines directly at dealer discount for a reasonable time.
The issues in this case concern the applicability of the 1955 amendments to sections 16 and 17 of the Civil Practice Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 110, pars. 16, 17. As amended, those sections authorize the entry of judgments in personam on personal service of summons outside the State in enumerated classes of cases.
The applicable part of section 17 is as follows:
'(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits said person, and, if an individual, his personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of said acts:
'(a) The transaction of any business within this State;
'(2) Service of process upon any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State, as provided in this section, may be made by personally serving the summons upon the defendant outside this State, as provided in this Act, with the same force and effect as though summons had been personally served within this State.
'(3) Only causes of action arising from acts enumerated herein may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which jurisdiction over him is based upon this section.
'(4) Nothing herein contained limits or affects the right to serve any process in any other manner now or hereafter provided by law.'
The pertinent part of section 16 is as follows:
Mr. Chief Justice Stone stated in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95, citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733, 24 L.Ed. 565, 572.
Since Pennoyer v. Neff, significant social, technological, and legal developments have occurred. These new developments have necessitated a re-examination of former rigid concepts of in personam jurisdiction. However, in attempting to re-evaluate the concepts of in personam jurisdiction, in the light of changes in our modern complex society, many courts resorted to numerous fictions such as the granting of consent to be sued.
In the International Shoe Co. case the court made fiction yield to forthright and realistic considerations of fairness in the determination of what constitutes jurisdiction to determine personal rights. 326 U.S. at page 319, 66 S.Ct. at page 160.
Thus, due process requires only that, in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he must have certain minimum contacts with it so that the maintenance of the action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and, in addition, that the defendant be properly notified of the action against him so that he may adequately defend himself.
In Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 143 N.E.2d 673, this court held that sections 16 and 17 of the Civil Practice Act reflect a conscious purpose to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent permitted by the due process clause. In order to satisfy due process there must be minimum contacts with the State plus adequate notice to defend. There is no doubt that sections 16 and 17 afford adequate notice, since there is provision for personal service.
While the constitutional question is always present in determining whether a State, consistent with due process, can enter an in personam judgment against a non-resident defendant, nevertheless it is important to avoid placing the cart before the horse. If, for example, there are no minimum contacts with the State in a particular case, it will be unnecessary to decide whether the State, consistent with due process, can assume jurisdiction, unless the State assumes jurisdiction erroneously, and thereby violates due process.
In the case of International Shoe Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Snyder v. Hampton Industries, Inc.
......310-11 (1966 ed.). . In Grobark v. Addo Machine Co., Inc., 16 Ill.2d 426, 158 N.E.2d 73, 79 (1959), the Illinois Supreme Court ...310, 316-17, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 159 90 L.Ed. 95, supra; Lewin v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 16 N.Y.2d 1070, 266 N.Y.S.2d 391, 213 N.E.2d 686; Benedict Corp. v. Epstein, 47 Misc.2d ......
-
United States v. First National City Bank
...cert. denied, 379 U.S. 962, 85 S.Ct. 653 (decided under the Illinois statute on which § 302 was patterned). Compare Grobark v. Addo Machine Co., 16 Ill.2d 426, 158 N.E.2d 73; Insull v. New York World-Telegram Corp., 7 Cir., 273 F.2d 166; National Gas Appliance Corp. v. AB Electrolux, 7 Cir.......
-
Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corporation, 21334.
......v. Sun-X International, Inc., W.D.Wis., 1964, 227 F.Supp. 365. But see Grobark...v. Sun-X International, Inc., W.D.Wis., 1964, 227 F.Supp. 365. But see Grobark v. Addo......
-
Ronco, Inc. v. Plastics, Inc.
......807, 4 L.Ed.2d 770 (1960); Morgan v. Heckle, 171 F.Supp. 482 (E.D.Ill. 1959); Grobark v. Addo Machine Co., 16 Ill.2d 426, 158 N.E.2d 73 (1959). However, these cases rest on the ......