Miner v. United Air Lines Transport Corporation

• Decision Date: 30 October 1936
• Docket Number: No. 7682.,7682.
• Citation: Miner v. United Air Lines Transport Corporation, 16 F.Supp. 930 (S.D. Cal. 1936)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: MINER v. UNITED AIR LINES TRANSPORT CORPORATION.

16 F. Supp. 930

MINER v. UNITED AIR LINES TRANSPORT CORPORATION.

No. 7682.

District Court, S. D. California, Central Division.

October 30, 1936.

Randall & Bartlett, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.

Jesse H. Steinhart and John J. Goldberg, both of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.

HOLLZER, District Judge.

This is a motion to quash service of summons made upon the defendant's statutory agent in California. The complaint discloses that the action is one for damages for wrongful death caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant committed in the state of Wyoming. The defendant is a foreign corporation engaged in the business of a common carrier, both in interstate commerce and intrastate commerce within the state of California. While the complaint alleges that the defendant sold the decedent a roundtrip passage from Chicago, Ill., to Los Angeles, Cal., and return, it also appears from the complaint that the accident in question occurred after the decedent had been transported from California to Utah on a plane of a connecting line and while he was a passenger in one of the defendant's planes which was being operated from the state of Utah to points East.

An affidavit filed in support of the motion to quash discloses that summons had been served upon the defendant's statutory agent in this state, appointed pursuant to section 405 of the California Civil Code, as amended by St.1933, p. 1416.

The question is therefore presented whether under the law of California summons may be served upon the statutory agent of a foreign corporation in a suit arising upon a statutory tort committed in another state, the alleged tort being in no way connected with business transacted by the defendant in this state.

The United States Supreme Court, in Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Clarendon Co., 257 U.S. 533, 535, 42 S. Ct. 210, 211, 66 L.Ed. 354, said: "In dealing with statutes providing for service upon foreign corporations doing business in the state upon agents whose designation as such is especially required, this court has indicated a leaning toward a construction, where possible, that would exclude from their operation causes of action not arising in the business done by them in the state." (Citing cases.)

In Morris & Co. v. Skandinavia Insurance Co., 279 U.S. 405, beginning near the bottom of page 408, 49 S.Ct. 360, 361, 73 L.Ed. 762, the same court said: "The purpose of state statutes requiring the appointment by foreign corporations of agents upon whom process may be served is primarily to subject them to the jurisdiction of local courts in controversies growing out of transactions within the state. Citing cases. * * * And, in the absence of language compelling it, such a statute ought not to be construed to impose upon the courts of the state the duty, or to give them power, to take cases arising out of transactions so foreign to its interests."

In Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Co., 257 U.S. 213, at pages 215, 216, 42 S.Ct. 84, 85, 66 L.Ed. 201, the same court said: "The purpose in requiring the appointment of such an agent is primarily to secure local jurisdiction in respect of business...