Hilmes v. Marlin Firearms Company
| Decision Date | 25 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 5232. |
| Citation | 136 F. Supp. 307 |
| Parties | John HILMES, Plaintiff, v. MARLIN FIREARMS COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Jerome M. Daly, St. Paul, Minn., appeared in behalf of plaintiff in opposition thereto.
John J. Sexton and Robert J. Tyrrell, St. Paul, Minn., appeared in behalf of defendant in support of said motion.
This is a personal injury action for injuries sustained by plaintiff when a 12 gauge shotgun manufactured by defendant backfired while he was using it. The shotgun was an old model which had been owned by several parties before coming into plaintiff's possession. Where it was first sold and to whom does not appear.
The Marlin Firearms Company is not a corporation qualified to do business in Minnesota. It is a Connecticut corporation which maintains no office or listing in this State. Process was served upon one Charles E. Eggers, a member with one Tom Raymond of a partnership d. b. a. Tom Raymond Sporting Goods, with offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Chicago, Illinois. This partnership is engaged in the business of soliciting orders from wholesale distributors for the products of twelve or so manufacturers of various types of sporting goods, and for the past six years has obtained orders for Marlin in the State of Minnesota aggregating between $75,000 and $125,000. These orders are taken on the purchaser's order form or on a form supplied by the partnership, not by Marlin, and are subject to acceptance by Marlin at its New York office, and, if accepted, the goods then are shipped by Marlin f. o. b. New Haven, Connecticut, directly to the purchaser placing the order. The purchase price is paid to Marlin directly by the purchaser. Marlin maintains no office, no stock of goods or warehouse in Minnesota, and is not listed in any telephone directory with an office location in this State. It makes no adjustments of complaints, services no guns, and accepts no orders or payments therefor within Minnesota. It pays the partnership a fixed commission on each order it accepts and fills and nothing more. The commission is paid to the partnership without deduction for social security, withholding taxes, or any other item. The partnership hires, pays and discharges those employed by it in its own discretion. It retains full and exclusive control of its own employees and Marlin has no control over its conduct of the partnership business, including the solicitation by it of orders for Marlin's products. The partnership is not authorized to, and does not, extend credit, handle or make adjustments, service guns, make collections or bind Marlin in any way. Its sole function is to solicit orders and forward them to Marlin for acceptance or other disposition, and any and all expenses incurred in obtaining the orders are assumed and paid by the partnership without reimbursement by Marlin.
The facts in this case present the issue of whether a foreign corporation is amenable to suit in Minnesota because of mere solicitation of orders for it by an independent partnership which also solicits orders for numerous other manufacturers, where the solicitation has been regular and has resulted in a continuous flow of the corporation's products into the State over a period of years and where the action is based upon an alleged defect in a gun manufactured by the corporation but which had been owned by several parties before coming into the plaintiff's possession.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rensing v. Turner Aviation Corporation
...v. Fancher Furniture Co., D.C., 156 F.Supp. 564; W. H. Elliot & Sons Co. v. E. & F. King & Co., D.C., 144 F.Supp. 401; Hilmes v. Marlin Firearms, D.C., 136 F. Supp. 307; Kenny v. Alaska Airlines, D. C., 132 F.Supp. 838; Convery v. Clairol Inc., D.C., 123 F.Supp. 29; Allentown Record Co. v. ......
-
Arrowsmith v. United Press International
...and n. 9 (S.D. Ind.1962); Eighth: Charles Keeshin, Inc. v. Gordon Johnson Co., 109 F.Supp. 939 (W.D.Ark.1952); Hilmes v. Marlin Firearms Co., 136 F.Supp. 307-308 (D.Minn.1955) ("where jurisdiction in a case is based solely upon diversity of citizenship, the power of the federal district cou......
-
Nerlund v. Schiavone, 37083
...Assur. Corp. v. Lejeune, 5 Cir., 189 F.2d 521; Hussey Tie Co. v. Knickerbocker Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 20 F.2d 892; Hilmes v. Marlin Firearms Co., D.C.D.Minn., 136 F.Supp. 307.9 Burchard v. Hull, 71 Minn. 430, 74 N.W. 163.10 Restatement, Agency, §§ 7, 15.11 Riteway Carriers, Inc., v. Schue, 248 M......
-
Twin City Scenic Co. v. Flambeau Plastics Corp.
...is whether the defendant herein can be sued in Minnesota pursuant to Minnesota law. Defendant relies upon Hilmes v. Marlin Firearms Co., D.C.D.Minn.1955, 136 F. Supp. 307. In that case, however, while there was solicitation of business in Minnesota for the defendant by an independent solici......