Hoagland v. Springer
| Decision Date | 17 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A--48,A--48 |
| Citation | 186 A.2d 679,39 N.J. 32 |
| Parties | Elmer T. HOAGLAND, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William C. SPRINGER, Defendant-Respondent, and Cummins Engine Company, Inc., a corporation of the State of Indiana, Cummins Diesel Metropolitan, Inc., a corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendants, and Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc., a corporation of the State of Michigan, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Herman D. Michels, Newark, for defendant-appellant (John E. Morris, Newark, on the brief, Toner, Crowley, Woelper & Vanderbilt, Newark, attorneys.)
Francis M. Seaman, Perth Amboy, for plaintiff-respondent (Sam Weiss, Newark, on the brief, Seaman & Clark, Perth Amboy, attorneys).
LeRoy H. Mattson, Newark, for defendant-respondent (Troast, Mattson & Madden, Newark, attorneys).
The opinion of the court was delivered
The refusal of the trial court to vacate the service of summons on the defendant Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Goldmann in the Appellate Division. 75 N.J.Super. 560, 183 A.2d 678 (1962).
Subsequent to the oral argument we were advised by agreement of counsel that on April 11, 1960 Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. recorded in the office of the County Clerk of Somerset County, New Jersey, the conditional sale contract between it and William C. Springer covering the diesel engine sold to Springer and installed by it in his Ford tractor. The tractor and the engine were made subject to the contract. Such action on defendant's part provides additional support for the conclusion that it was properly subjected to service of process of the Superior Court of this State.
For affirmance: Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN--7.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callahan v. Keystone Fireworks Mfg. Co.
...at Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. All parties could be brought together in one suit in Spokane County. Nixon v. Cohn, supra; Hoagland v. Springer, 39 N.J. 32, 186 A.2d 679 (1962), a per curiam affirmance adopting the reasoning of the appellate division at 75 N.J.Super. 560, 183 A.2d 678 (1962); Cosp......
-
Laborers' Local Union Nos. 472 and 172 v. Interstate Curb & Sidewalk
...to meet the requirements of procedural due process. See Hoagland v. Springer, 75 N.J.Super. 560, 183 A.2d 678 (App.Div.), aff'd, 39 N.J. 32, 186 A.2d 679 (1962); Paterson v. Fargo Realty Inc., 174 N.J.Super. 178, 415 A.2d 1210 (Passaic County Ct.1980); Taca International Airlines, Inc. v. R......
-
Delahanty v. Hinckley
...298 A.2d 298, 304 (Law Div.1972), citing Hoagland v. Springer, 75 N.J.Super. 560, 590, 183 A.2d 678, 683 (App.Div.1962), affd. 39 N.J. 32, 186 A.2d 679 (1962). As the latter court noted "to conclude otherwise would ... permit (the manufacturer) to receive the fruits of its New Jersey activi......
-
Blessing v. Prosser
...v. Springer, 74 N.J.Super. 275, 280, 181 A.2d 193 (Law Div.1962), aff'd 75 N.J.Super. 560, 183 A.2d 678 (App.Div.1962, aff'd 39 N.J. 32, 186 A.2d 679 (1962). While our long-arm rule allows out-of-state service 'to the uttermost limits permitted by the United States Constitution,' Avdel Corp......