Jet Mfg. Co. v. Sanford Ink Co.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1953 |
| Citation | 330 Mass. 173,112 N.E.2d 252 |
| Parties | JET MFG. CO., Inc. v. SANFORD INK CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stanley S. Ganz, Boston (James A. Doyle, Boston, with him), for defendant.
Russell J. Coffin, Boston, for plaintiff.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, WILKINS, WILLIAMS and COUNIHAN, JJ.
This action is in contract or tort for breach of warranty in the sale of ink or for negligence in its manufacture or distribution. The writ describes the defendant as an Illinois corporation 'engaged in soliciting business in the Commonwealth, with aw place of business in Waltham.' The sheriff's return shows service in hand upon 'Ralph Gerard, its Agent in charge of its business.' A plea in abatement attacking jurisdiction was overruled by the judge, who has reported the correctness of this ruling. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 231, § 111.
The judge made these findings. The defendant is an Illinois corporation having a usual place of business there and one in New York, but none here. Through an advertising agency 'doing business and located outside of Massachusetts,' the defendant advertised in our local papers soliciting business here. In recent years, to encourage and promote the sale of its products here, it has held an annual sales convention in Boston attended by its president and several sales managers. For the past four years it has employed a permanent sales representative who resides here and whose duty is to solicit business here, and to do only those things which are incidental to selling and fostering good business relations between the trade and the defendant. He has authority to investigate complaints of customers, but not to bind the defendant in the settlement of disputes. The defendant sells its products to about 225 customers 'covering practically the entire Commonwealth.' It has no office, property, telephone, or listing in Massachusetts. All orders taken here are sent to, and filled directly from, Illinois.
The judge concluded with the statement that 'I find that at the time that process in this action was served the defendant was soliciting business in this Commonwealth within the meaning of' G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 223, § 38, St.139, c. 451, § 61, which reads: 'In an action against a foreign corporation * * * which has a usual place of business in the commonwealth, or, with or without such usual place of business, is engaged in or soliciting business in the commonwealth, permanently or temporarily, service may be made' as upon a domestic corporation.
It is possible that the judge found other facts not contained in his findings. In particular, it is not stated that the concluding finding that the defendant was soliciting business within the meaning of § 38 was an inference from other findings. The plaintiff, accordingly, contends that the only question is whether the specific facts are necessarily inconsistent with the general conclusion, and cites Cleveland v. Hampden Savings Bank, 182 Mass. 110, 111, 65 N.E. 27, and Rosemont v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 301 Mass. 139, 141, 16 N.E.2d 654. Since the result will be the same, however, we shall treat the so called finding as to solicitation within the meaning of § 38 as a conclusion based on the other express findings.
The defendant's activities are within the letter of § 38. But in Thurman v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., 254 Mass. 569, 151 N.E. 63, 46 A.L.R. 563, that statute was interpreted, on constitutional grounds, not to apply to a foreign railroad corporation which maintained an office in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilensky v. Standard Beryllium Corporation, Civ. A. No. 62-964-C
...for sale (Radio Shack Corp. v. Lafayette Radio Electronics Corp., 182 F.Supp. 717, 720 (D.Mass. 1960); Jet Mfg. Co. v. Sanford Ink Co., 330 Mass. 173, 112 N.E.2d 252 (1953); Wyshak v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 328 Mass. 219, 103 N.E.2d 230 (1952)), and it is also clear that where the sale......
-
Gunner v. Elmwood Dodge, Inc.
...1106, 1111 [D.Mass.1978] ), or have suggested that something beyond "mere solicitation" is required (see Jet Mfg. Co. v. Sanford Ink Co., 330 Mass. 173, 176, 112 N.E.2d 252 [1953] ), there is cause to doubt the "mere solicitation" reservation would still be applied to consistent and persist......
-
Remington Arms Co. v. Lechmere Tire & Sales Co.
...of process in this Commonwealth. See Wyshak v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 328 Mass. 219, 103 N.E.2d 230; Jet Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Sanford Ink Co., 330 Mass. 173, 112 N.E.2d 252. Its contentions are (1) that the qualification requirements of §§ 3, 5, and 12 do not apply to foreign corporations......
-
Murphy v. International Freighting Corporation, Civ. A. No. 57-533-F.
...by the Massachusetts courts, that is, solicitation together with some other substantial activity. Jet Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Sanford Ink Co., 330 Mass. 173, 112 N.E.2d 252. In other jurisdictions it has been held that a husbanding agent's activities on behalf of the owner of a vessel ar......