Neely v. Philadelphia Inquirer Co.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1932
• Docket Number: No. 5494.,5494.
• Citation: 62 F.2d 873,61 App. DC 334
• Parties: NEELY v. PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

61 App. DC 334, 62 F.2d 873 (1932)

NEELY v. PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER CO.

No. 5494.

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

Argued October 10, 1932.

Decided December 19, 1932.

T. Morris Wampler and Joseph C. Turco, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Frank J. Hogan, Edmund L. Jones, and John W. Guider, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

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

HITZ, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia quashing process, upon motion, in an action of tort against the appellee, a Delaware corporation, publishing a newspaper in the city of Philadelphia.

Further recital of the allegations of damage in the declaration is unnecessary for disposition of the case.

The process of summons was served upon the Washington correspondent of the defendant, who occupied two office rooms in the National Press Building, the rent and other expenses of which were paid by the defendant company, whose name appeared on the door, in the telephone book, and perhaps elsewhere, as the tenant of the premises.

The correspondent was a news gatherer for the company with no other duty or authority except such as was directly and necessarily incidental to his news gathering and the transmittal thereof to the main office of the company in Philadelphia.

By its motion and supporting affidavits the defendant denied that it was doing business in the District of Columbia within the meaning of the Code section governing service upon foreign corporations in this jurisdiction, and also denied that the correspondent was its agent as contemplated by that section, which provides as follows:

"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.

"When a foreign corporation shall transact business in the District without having any place of business or resident agent therein, service upon any officer or agent or employee of such corporation in the District shall be effectual as to suits growing out of contracts entered into or to be performed, in whole or in part, in the District of Columbia or growing out of any tort committed in the said District." Code D. C., title 24, § 373, Act March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, c. 854, § 1537, Act June 30, 1902, 32 Stat. 544, c. 1329, Act Feb. 1, 1907, 34 Stat. 874, c. 445.

The authority for service in this case is asserted and denied under the first paragraph of the foregoing section, and, since the validity of the service is thereby made to depend upon whether the defendant was doing business in the District of Columbia, that is the first, if not the only, question for consideration.

And in a line of cases the Supreme Court has announced the principles upon which said question must be decided, while expressly declining to attempt the formulation of a general statement as to what acts shall constitute a doing of business sufficient to bring a foreign corporation within the scope of such a statute.

For each case is to be considered and decided upon its own facts and circumstances, though in a general way it may be said that the business done must be of such character and extent as to warrant the inference that the foreign corporation is present by its agent in the jurisdiction of the process, and has thereby...