Int'l Shoe Co. v. Lovejoy, 42621.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1934
• Docket Number: No. 42621.,42621.
• Citation: 219 Iowa 204,257 N.W. 576
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. v. LOVEJOY, Judge, et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

219 Iowa 204

257 N.W. 576

INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO.

v.LOVEJOY, Judge, et al.

No. 42621.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 11, 1934.

Certiorari to District Court, Black Hawk County; A. B. Lovejoy, Judge.

Original proceeding in certiorari to review the ruling of the district court upon a special appearance. The action in which the special appearance was entered was brought by Glenn B. Beers against the International Shoe Company, the Peters Shoe Company, and O. H. Buttenhoff. The special appearance is in behalf of the International Shoe Company only. It is alleged in the special appearance that the Peters Shoe Company is neither a corporation nor a copartnership, but merely has the designation of a selling division of the International Shoe Company. Upon a hearing had in the district court upon the special appearance, the court found that it had jurisdiction and overruled the challenge of the International Shoe Company thereto. The latter electing to stand upon its special appearance, judgment was entered against it in favor of the plaintiff Beers in the sum of $2,500, together with costs. Thereupon, the International Shoe Company instituted this original proceeding in this court for a writ of certiorari to test the legality of the court's rulings, assuming jurisdiction of the defendant.

Writ annulled.

Edw. J. Wenner, of Waterloo, for petitioner.

Reed, Beers & Graham, of Waterloo, for respondents.

STEVENS, Justice.

Original notice of an action at law commenced in the name of Glenn B. Beers in the district court of Black Hawk county was served upon L. P. Sommerhauser in Linn county as the supposed agent of petitioner, International Shoe Company, in the state of Iowa. The action in which the original notice was served is to recover damages by a landlord against petitioner for the alleged wrongful and fraudulent removal of a stock of shoes from leased premises in the city of Waterloo. The special appearance of the defendant International Shoe Company, the petitioner herein, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to enter a personal judgment against it. The question presented is not so much a new one in this state as others of like character have arisen, but is one which must be determined always upon the facts peculiar thereto.

It appears from the proof offered upon the hearing had upon the special appearance that petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and having its principal place of business in the state of Missouri and is engaged, on a large scale, in the manufacture of shoes for sale to retail stores. Sommerhauser was, for a period of about two years, employed as a salesman in the state of Iowa for petitioner, and was so engaged when the original notice was served upon him. His business was to solicit and forward orders for merchandise to the home office of petitioner in the state of Missouri. He made no investigation as to the credit rating of customers in the state of Iowa, but, if knowledge came to him that a customer was not doing well, he reported that fact to his employer. If checks in payment of merchandise were tendered to him, they were accepted and forwarded to the home office. He appears to have had no authority to accept cash or to collect checks. Sommerhauser had a specified territory in which he traveled by automobile visiting customers about once each month. The automobile was owned by Sommerhauser, but a certain sum was allowed him by his employer for the use thereof and the expense of operation. Petitioner maintained other salesmen in the state of Iowa. It also maintained in the city of Des Moines a permanent sample or display room in a local hotel which was used for the display of merchandise and the taking of orders therefor from customers. In addition to the foregoing, a stock of samples used by him was maintained at Cedar Rapids where he lived. No warehouse in which merchandise was stored was maintained in this state. All merchandise was shipped direct from St. Louis to the customer. No other room or office was maintained in this state, except such as is stated above.

On or about January 2, 1931, O. H. Buttenhoff leased a building in the city of Waterloo in which to conduct a retail shoe store. This lease, together with the cause of action alleged in plaintiff's petition in the district court, was subsequently assigned by the lessor to Glenn B. Beers. Sommerhauser, acting as salesman for petitioner, sold Buttenhoff a stock of shoes. The entrance of Buttenhoff into the shoe business was first suggested by Sommerhauser, who denied that he urged him to go into the business. The stock of shoes was sold on credit and was shipped to Buttenhoff Shoe Company of Waterloo by petitioner. Sommerhauser gave advice as to business methods to be pursued, advertising display, and instructed Buttenhoff in bookkeeping. It was the practice of Sommerhauser to use his efforts...