Keating v. Inland Steel Co. (In re Inland Steel Co.)

• Citation: 182 N.W. 917,174 Wis. 140
• Parties: IN RE INLAND STEEL CO. KEATING v. INLAND STEEL CO. HALEY v. INLAND STEEL CO.
• Decision Date: 03 May 1921
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

174 Wis. 140

182 N.W. 917

IN RE INLAND STEEL CO. KEATING

v.INLAND STEEL CO.

HALEY

v.INLAND STEEL CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 3, 1921.

Original application by the Inland Steel Company for a writ of prohibition against Thomas Keating, heard with a similar application against Morris Haley. Writs granted.

Petitions for writs of prohibition to restrain the further prosecution of two suits in the circuit court for Douglas county on the ground that the summons had not been properly served on the petitioner, which is a foreign corporation. Writs allowed.

The facts in the two cases are identical so far as the merits of the petitions are concerned, and they will therefore be treated as one. Both plaintiffs are nonresidents of Wisconsin, and the cause of action did not accrue in this state but in Minnesota. Suits were brought in the federal District Court of that state which were pending at the time the petitions herein were filed, but which had been dismissed at the time of the oral argument. The causes of action grew out of alleged improper mining methods in operating a mine in Crow Wing county, Minn. Service of summons was made on C. M. Easterly, an agent of the defendant at Milwaukee, on the 31st day of January, 1921.

The validity of such service is sought to be sustained by an affidavit of C. R. Fridley, one of the attorneys for plaintiffs, made upon information and belief to the effect that defendant has property in this state consisting of office furniture, and fixtures, a lease of the office occupied by its agent C. M. Easterly in Milwaukee; that it also has credits for manufactured products sold to residents of this state who are solvent, and has manufactured products sold but undelivered in this state, and upon personal knowledge it is stated that the name of the defendant appears upon the outside door of the offices occupied by its agent C. M. Easterly at Milwaukee.

The opposing affidavits are made by D. P. Thompson, assistant to the president of the defendant, and by C. M. Easterly, its agent at Milwaukee. They are made upon personalknowledge, and deny that defendant has any property in Wisconsin--

“save such office stationery and supplies necessarily used by C. M. Easterly as its soliciting agent in connection with his duties * * * and which stationery and supplies are of no value to any person or corporation than to the defendant, save and except such intrinsic value as they may have, separate and apart from their uses as the property of the defendant.”

The lease, it is alleged, is the personal property of the agent Easterly, who transacts other business than that of the defendant in the office occupied by him; that the office is leased for his own personal use and purposes. It is further alleged that all shipments of manufactured products are made by defendant from its manufacturing plant located outside of Wisconsin, and that when delivery is made f. o. b. cars its right, title, and interest in the goods shipped ceases. The allegations in the respective affidavits as to the nature and extent of the business carried on in this state by the defendant are omitted, as we do not find it necessary to consider the question of whether or not defendant was carrying on a business in this state.

Hanitch, Hartley & McPherson, of Superior (Abbott, MacPherran, Gilbert & Doan, of Duluth, Minn., of counsel), for petitioner.

Grace, Fridley & Crawford, of Superior, for respondents.

VINJE, J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1] The conditions upon which this court will exercise its superintending control in questions now before us were thoroughly discussed in Re Petition of Pierce Arrow Motor Car Co., 143 Wis. 282, 127 N. W. 998, and will not now be restated. The court there restricted its power to its minimum sphere, and while there is no...