Layne v. Tribune Co., 6103.

• Decision Date: 07 May 1934
• Docket Number: No. 6103.,6103.
• Citation: 71 F.2d 223,63 App. DC 213
• Parties: LAYNE v. TRIBUNE CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

63 App. DC 213, 71 F.2d 223 (1934)

LAYNE v. TRIBUNE CO.

No. 6103.

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

Argued April 4, 1934.

Decided May 7, 1934.

James A. O'Shea, John H. Burnett, and Alfred Goldstein, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Louis G. Caldwell and A. W. Scharfeld, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

Appellant, plaintiff below, brought an action for damages in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia against the defendant company for the publication of an alleged libelous article in the Daily Tribune. The Tribune Company is an Illinois corporation, engaged in publishing the Chicago Daily Tribune and the Chicago Sunday Tribune at Chicago, Illinois. These papers are circulated extensively throughout the country. Summons and a copy of the declaration were served on Arthur S. Henning, an employee of defendant company, in charge of the collection of news in the city of Washington, and the forwarding of them to the Tribune office in Chicago.

Defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that it was not doing business here, and was not subject to service of process in this district. Plaintiff demurred and moved to strike the plea. Both the demurrer and motion were overruled, and joinder of issue was made on the plea. The case was tried to the court, and judgment was entered for defendant, from which this appeal was taken.

Title 24, § 373, of the District Code, 1929, among other things, provides: "In actions against foreign corporations doing business in the District all process may be served on the agent of such corporation or person conducting its business, or, in case he is absent and can not be found, by leaving a copy at the principal place of business in the District, or, if there be no such place of business, by leaving the same at the place of business or residence of such agent in said District, and such service shall be effectual to bring the corporation before the court."

The evidence disclosed that defendant company maintained an office in Washington, in charge of Henning, upon whom the service of process was made. That there are three other reporters and two telegraph operators employed in that office. Defendant company maintained a leased telegraph wire between Washington and Chicago, its home office. The business of Henning and his associates was to collect news in Washington and send it to Chicago. The news articles were there examined and used or discarded by defendant company and supplied to other newspapers.

It further appeared that defendant company maintains a telephone in the Washington office; that Henning had authority to purchase supplies for the office; employ, when business required, additional telegraph operators; all of which items were put in his expense account, which was paid from the Chicago office. Henning's and the other employees' salaries were paid directly from the Chicago office. The rent and furnishings of the office in Washington were paid for directly from the Chicago office. It also appeared that defendant company made no contracts of any nature in the District of Columbia, and no money was received by any of the employees here for contracts entered into by defendant, or for the sale of defendant's papers here, or for advertising. No employee of defendant was authorized to enter into any contract with any other corporation outside of the state of Illinois. On this statement of facts, the court below held that defendant company was not doing business in the ...