National Equipment Rental, Ltd v. Szukhent, No. 81

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTEWART
Citation375 U.S. 311,84 S.Ct. 411,11 L.Ed.2d 354
PartiesNATIONAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LTD., Petitioner, v. Steve SZUKHENT et al
Decision Date06 January 1964
Docket NumberNo. 81

375 U.S. 311
84 S.Ct. 411
11 L.Ed.2d 354
NATIONAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LTD., Petitioner,

v.

Steve SZUKHENT et al.

No. 81.
Argued Nov. 20, 1963.
Decided Jan. 6, 1964.

Page 312

Wilbur G. Silverman, Jamaica, N.Y., for petitioner.

Harry R. Schwartz, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.

Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that service of process upon an individual may be made 'by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment * * * to receive service of process.'1 The petitioner is a corporation with

Page 313

its principal place of business in New York. It sued the respondents, residents of Michigan, in a New York federal court, claiming that the respondents had defaulted under a farm equipment lease. The only question now before us is whether the person upon whom the summons and complaint were served was 'an agent authorized by appointment' to receive the same, so as to subject the respondents to the jurisdiction of the federal court in New York.2

The respondents obtained certain farm equipment from the petitioner under a lease executed in 1961. The lease was on a printed form less than a page and a half in length, and consisted of 18 numbered paragraphs. The last numbered paragraph, appearing just above the respondents' signatures and printed in the same type used in the remainder of the instrument, provided that 'the Lessee hereby designates Florence Weinberg, 47—21 Forty-first Street, Long Island City, N.Y., as agent for the purpose of accepting service of any process within the State of New York.'3 The respondents were not acquainted with Florence Weinberg.

Page 314

In 1962 the petitioner commenced the present action by filing in the federal court in New York a complaint which alleged that the respondents had failed to make any of the periodic payments specified by the lease. The Marshal delivered two copies of the summons and complaint to Florence Weinberg. That same day she mailed the summons and complaint to the respondents, together with a letter stating that the documents had been served upon her as the respondents' spondents' agent for the purpose of accepting service of process in New York, in accordance with the agreement contained in the lease.4 The petitioner itself also notified the respondents by certified mail of the service of process upon Florence Weinberg.

Upon motion of the respondents, the District Court quashed service of the summons and complaint, holding that, although Florence Weinberg had promptly notified the respondents of the service of process and mailed copies of the summons and complaint to them, the lease agreement itself had not explicitly required her to do so, and there was therefore a 'failure of the agency arrangement to achieve intrinsic and continuing reality.' 30 F.R.D. 3, 5. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 311 F.2d 79, and we granted certiorari, 372 U.S. 974, 83 S.Ct. 1110, 10 L.Ed.2d 141. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we have concluded that Florence Weinberg was 'an agent authorized by appointment * * * to receive service of process,' and accordingly we reverse the judgment before us.

Page 315

We need not and do not in this case reach the situation where no personal notice has been given to the defendant. Since the respondents did in fact receive complete and timely notice of the lawsuit pending against them, no due process claim has been made. The case before us is therefore quite different from cases where there was no actual notice, such as Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208, 83 .Ct. 279, 9 L.Ed.2d 255; Walker v. Hutchinson City, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178; and Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865. Similarly, as the Court of Appeals recognized, this Court's decision in Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13, 48 S.Ct. 259, 72 L.Ed. 466, is inapposite here. In that case a state nonresident motorist statute which failed to provide explicitly for communication of notice was held unconstitutional, despite the fact that notice had been given to the defendant in that particular case. Wuchter dealt with the limitations imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment upon a statutory scheme by which a State attempts to subject nonresident individuals to the jurisdiction of its courts. The question presented here, on the other hand, is whether a party to a private contract may appoint an agent to receive service of process within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1), where the agent is not personally known to the party, and where the agent has not expressly undertaken to transmit notice to the party.

The purpose underlying the contractual provision here at issue seems clear. The clause was inserted by the petitioner and agreed to by the respondents in order to assure that any litigation under the lease should be conducted in the State of New York. The contract specifically provided that 'This agreement shall be deemed to have been made in Nassau County, New York, regardless of the order in which the signatures of the parties shall be affixed hereto, and shall be interpreted, and the rights and liabilities of the parties here determined, in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.' And it is settled,

Page 316

as the courts below recognized, that parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court, to permit notice to be served by the opposing party, or even to waive notice altogether. See, e.g., Kenny Construction Co. v. Allen, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 334, 248 F.2d 656 (1957); Bowles v. J. J. Schmitt & Co., Inc., 170 F.2d 617 (C.A.2d Cir. 1948); Gilbert v. Burnstine, 255 N.Y. 348, 174 N.E. 706, 73 A.L.R. 1453 (1931).

Under well-settled general principles of the law of agency Florence Weinberg's prompt acceptance and transmittal to the respondents of the summons and complaint pursuant to the authorization was itself sufficient to validate the agency, even though there was no explicit previous promise on her part to do so. 'The principal's authorization may neither expressly nor impliedly request any expression of assent by the agent as a condition of the authority, and in such a case any exercise of power by the agent within the scope of the authorization, during the term for which it was given, or within a reasonable time if no fixed term was mentioned, will bind the principal.' 2 Williston on Contracts (3d ed. 1959), § 274.

We deal here with a Federal Rule, applicable to federal courts in all 50 States. But even if we were to assume that this uniform federal standard should give way to contrary local policies, there is no relevant concept of state law which would invalidate the agency here at issue. In Michigan, where the respondents reside, the statute which validates service of process under the circumstances present in this case contains no provision requiring that the appointed agent expressly undertake to notify the principal of the service of process.5 Similarly, New York law, which it was agreed should be applicable to the lease provisions, does not require any such express promise by the agent in order to create a valid agency for receipt of

Page 317

process. The New York statutory short form of general power of attorney, which specifically includes the power to accept service of process,6 is entirely silent as to any such requirement.7 Indeed, the identical contractual provision at issue here has been held by a New York court to create a valid agency for service of process under the law of that State. National Equi ment Rental, Ltd. v. Graphic Art Designers, Inc., 36 Misc.2d 442, 234 N.Y.S.2d 61.8

It is argued, finally, that the agency sought to be created in this case was invalid because Florence Weinberg may have had a conflict of interest. This argument is based upon the fact that she was not personally known to the respondents at the time of her appointment and upon a suggestion in the record that she may be related to an officer of the petitioner corporation. But such a contention ignores the narrowly limited nature of the agency here involved. Florence Weinberg was appointed the respondents' agent for the single purpose of receiving service of process. An agent with authority so limited can in no meaningful sense be deemed to have had an interest antagonistic to the respondents, since both the

Page 318

petitioner and the respondents had an equal interest in assuring that, in the event of litigation, the latter be given that adequate and timely notice which is a prerequisite to a valid judgment.9

A different case would be presented if Florence Weinberg had not given prompt notice to the respondents, for then the claim might well be made that her failure to do so had operated to invalidate the agency. We hold only that, prompt notice to the respondents having been given, Florence Weinberg was their 'agent authorized by appointment' to receive process within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and case remanded.

Mr. Justice BLACK, dissenting.

The petitioner, National Equipment Rental, Ltd., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in greater New York City. From that location it does a nationwide equipment rental business. The respondents,

Page 319

Steve and Robert Szukhent, father and son farming in Michigan, leased from National two incubators for their farm, signing in Michigan a lease contract which was a standard printed form obviously prepared by the New York company's lawyers. Included in the 18 paragraphs of fine print was the following provision:

'* * * the Lessee hereby designates Florence Weinberg, 47—21 Forty-first Street, Long Island City,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
521 practice notes
  • Licensed Practical Nurses v. Ulysses Cruises, No. 00 Civ. 4349(GEL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 15, 2000
    ...Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, in personam jurisdiction may be based on consent. See Nat'l Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 316, 84 S.Ct. 411, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964); Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 67-68, 58 S.Ct. 454, 82 L.Ed. 649 (1938); Alexander Proudfoot Co. v. Thay......
  • Global v. Prithvi Info. Sols., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01290-WSS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 10, 2020
    ...117, 144 (2014). There are a few exceptions to this general rule. Parties may consent to a forum. Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 316 (1964); Pitt. Nat'l Bank v. Kassir, 153 F.R.D. 580, 583 (W.D. Pa. 1994). Defendants can also waive their lack of personal jurisdiction w......
  • In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 11 MDL 2262 (NRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2015
    ...471 U.S. at 472 n.14 (quoting The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972), and citing Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311 (1964)). Here, no party argues that the relevant forum selection clauses are either Page 83procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Ther......
  • AXA Inv. Managers UK Ltd. v. Endeavor Capital Mgmt. LLC, No. 11 Civ. 3221(PGG)(MHD).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 24, 2012
    ...Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Frasch, 751 F.Supp. 1075, 1078 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (citing Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 315–16, 84 S.Ct. 411, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964)). Similarly, contractual provisions designating an agreed-upon venue are widely enforced. [890 F.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
520 cases
  • Licensed Practical Nurses v. Ulysses Cruises, No. 00 Civ. 4349(GEL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 15, 2000
    ...Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, in personam jurisdiction may be based on consent. See Nat'l Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 316, 84 S.Ct. 411, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964); Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 67-68, 58 S.Ct. 454, 82 L.Ed. 649 (1938); Alexander Proudfoot Co. v. Thay......
  • Global v. Prithvi Info. Sols., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01290-WSS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 10, 2020
    ...117, 144 (2014). There are a few exceptions to this general rule. Parties may consent to a forum. Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 316 (1964); Pitt. Nat'l Bank v. Kassir, 153 F.R.D. 580, 583 (W.D. Pa. 1994). Defendants can also waive their lack of personal jurisdiction w......
  • In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 11 MDL 2262 (NRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2015
    ...471 U.S. at 472 n.14 (quoting The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972), and citing Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311 (1964)). Here, no party argues that the relevant forum selection clauses are either Page 83procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Ther......
  • AXA Inv. Managers UK Ltd. v. Endeavor Capital Mgmt. LLC, No. 11 Civ. 3221(PGG)(MHD).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 24, 2012
    ...Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Frasch, 751 F.Supp. 1075, 1078 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (citing Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 315–16, 84 S.Ct. 411, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964)). Similarly, contractual provisions designating an agreed-upon venue are widely enforced. [890 F.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES, NON-SIGNATORIES, AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 1, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...in advance to submit their controversies for resolution within a particular jurisdiction." (citing Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 315-16 (167) Shafferv. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 214-15 (1977). (168) The forum selection clause non-signatory is analogous to the intangible ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT