Harford v. Smith, Civ. A. No. 647-E.

• Decision Date: 12 September 1967
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 647-E.
• Citation: 272 F. Supp. 831
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
• Parties: Paulette J. HARFORD and Oris Harford, Plaintiffs, v. Gilbert P. SMITH and Kathryn A. Smith, Defendants. Gilbert P. SMITH and Kathryn A. Smith, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. BUYRITE MERCHANDISING COMPANY, a corporation, doing business as the Gas House-Home Gas Equipment Company, Third-Party Defendant.

272 F. Supp. 831

Paulette J. HARFORD and Oris Harford, Plaintiffs, v. Gilbert P. SMITH and Kathryn A. Smith, Defendants.

Gilbert P. SMITH and Kathryn A. Smith, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. BUYRITE MERCHANDISING COMPANY, a corporation, doing business as the Gas House-Home Gas Equipment Company, Third-Party Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 647-E.

United States District Court N. D. West Virginia.

September 12, 1967.

Carl B. Galbraith, Ronald W. Kasserman, Wheeling, W. Va., for plaintiffs.

Richard H. Talbott, Jr., Elkins, W. Va., for defendants and third party plaintiffs.

W. E. Mohler, Charleston, W. Va., L. Baker Fowler, Elkins, W. Va., for third party defendant.

MAXWELL, Chief Judge.

On August 19, 1966, this Court denied a motion to quash service of process sought by the third-party defendant Buyrite Manufacturing Company, an Ohio corporation. Harford v. Smith, 257 F. Supp. 578 (N.D.W.Va.1966). Buyrite has now renewed that motion. In addition, the third-party defendant moves for summary judgment in its favor.

Supporting the renewed motion to quash, Buyrite places reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Hodge v. Sands Mfg. Co., W.Va., 150 S.E.2d 793 (1966), decided subsequent to this Court's earlier decision on this point.

As the Court indicated in its earlier opinion, service on Buyrite, an Ohio corporation, is based on Rule 4(d) (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which, in turn, calls for interpreting West Virginia's so-called "long-arm statute," and this Court agrees that the latest interpretation of that statute by West Virginia's highest court must be considered.

However, the Court does not believe that the Hodge case compels a reversal of our earlier decision.

The Hodge case held that a West Virginia court was without jurisdiction over foreign corporations, defendants in an action for damages resulting from an exploding water heater which they manufactured, where the defendants had not done business in the State and did not employ any servants or agents in the State. Plaintiff had purchased the heater from a West Virginia retailer who, in turn, had purchased it through an independent salesman not employed by the defendants.

This Court feels that the instant case is clearly distinguishable from Hodge. While in Hodge the facts revealed nothing more than a single, isolated sale negotiated by an independent salesman, and there was no evidence of any solicitation of business within West Virginia, it is clear that Buyrite does solicit business in West Virginia. See the Court's earlier opinion, Harford v. Smith, supra, 257 F. Supp. at 581, that soliciting is done by advertising and direct mail to customers in West Virginia.

In a decision prior to Hodge the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals appeared to approve of a trend toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations. State ex rel. Coral Pools v. Knapp, 147 W.Va. 704, 131 S.E.2d 81, (1963). Since the manufacturing defendant in Hodge did sell its water heater to a West Virginia retailer, albeit through an independent salesman and not through its own representatives, it may well be that Hodge reflects a reluctance to continue West Virginia's acceptance of the trend.

However, the Supreme Court in Hodge was careful to note that its determination of what constitutes minimum contacts sufficient to satisfy the long-arm statute "depends upon the specific facts...