Klopp v. Creston City Guarantee Water Works Co.

• Decision Date: 11 June 1892
• Citation: 52 N.W. 819,34 Neb. 808
• Parties: KLOPP ET AL. v. CRESTON CITY GUARANTEE WATER WORKS CO.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

34 Neb. 808

52 N.W. 819

KLOPP ET AL.

v.CRESTON CITY GUARANTEE WATER WORKS CO.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 11, 1892.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a foreign corporation contracts a debt in this state as for labor and materials, service in this state upon the managing agent is sufficient, although he be but temporarily within the state.

Error to district court, Douglas county; CLARRSON, Judge.

Action by Klopp, Bartlett & Co. against the Creston City Guarantee Water Works Company on an account for goods sold. There was judgment for plaintiffs in the county court. Defendant took the case on error to the district court, where the judgment was reversed, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed, and the county court judgment reinstated, and the cause remanded to the district court.John W. Lytle, for plaintiffs in error.

Chas. Offutt and Will H. Thompson, for defendant in error.

MAXWELL, C. J.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant in the county court of Douglas county upon the following account:

Omaha, Neb., Dec. 5th, 1890.

Creston City Guarantee Water Works Co., Creston, Ia.

To Klopp, Bartlett & Co., Dr.

+--------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To ptg. 100 coupon bonds            ¦$ 81 00¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To ptg. one stock certificate       ¦21 00  ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To one engraved heading for         ¦16 00  ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To one engraved bond                ¦20 00  ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To engraving and making 5 autographs¦3 50   ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To one lint block, 9x12 in          ¦7 00   ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To one lint block, 6x12 in          ¦3 00   ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To one lint block, 2x2 in           ¦3 00   ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To one lint block, 2x9 in           ¦1 75   ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To one lint block, 4x9 in           ¦2 00   ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To one application blanks           ¦5 00   ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feby. 18th.¦To 300 cards                        ¦3 50   ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Mch. 12.   ¦To 100 cards                        ¦1 50   ¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦           ¦                                    ¦$168 25¦
                +-----------+------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦May 14.    ¦Cr. By cash                         ¦20 00  ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Balance due                                     ¦$148 25¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------+
                

A summons was duly issued, which was served in Douglas county on David Soper, vice president of the defendant. The action was brought December 9, 1890, the return day being the 15th of that month. On that day, Soper asked and obtained a continuance of the cause until the 14th of January, 1891. On the latter date the plaintiff sought and obtained a continuance until the next day. On January 15, 1891, the defendant filed a motion, as follows: “Comes now the defendant, the Creston City Guarantee Water Works Company, and appearing specially herein, for the sole and only purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of this court over the person of it, the said Creston City Guarantee Water Works Company, moves that this court refuse to proceed further herein, as against said company, for the reason as follows, to wit: (1) That said Creston City Guaranntee Water Works Company is a foreign corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Iowa. (2) That it, the said defendant company, had no office of any kind nor any property, nor any managing or other agent, in the state of Nebraska, at the time of the institution of this action, and has not since had and has no such office, no property, no managing or other agent, in the state of Nebraska at this time. (3) That the said David Soper, who appears upon the return of the summons herein to have been served with the said summons as the vice president of this defendant company, was at...