Oyler v. JP Seeburg Corporation
| Decision Date | 30 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 169.,169. |
| Citation | 29 F. Supp. 927 |
| Parties | OYLER v. J. P. SEEBURG CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Max R. Rosenfield and Scurry & Scurry, all of Dallas, Tex., and Sidney J. Wolf, of Chicago, Ill., for the motion.
Randall & Gray, of Dallas, Tex., opposed.
Oyler claims that the Seeburg Corporation has appropriated a certain patent that was granted on his invention. He sues for damages. He is a resident of Texas.
The defendant is an Illinois corporation, with its office and place of business at Chicago. In order to get that corporation into court here, the plaintiff caused service to be made upon the Electro Ball Company, a Texas corporation, with its principal office and place of business in Dallas, Texas, and also upon a Mr. Sterns.
The defendant moves to quash service and dismiss the suit, on the ground that those served are not its agents, and that "it is not doing business in Texas."
The Electro Ball Company is a wholly independent concern, connected in no way whatsoever with the defendant. It is engaged in a number of businesses at Dallas. It also has a consignment contract with the defendant and operates under that contract. It receives on consignment, at its place of business in Dallas, Texas, and eleven other states, certain musical instruments which are manufactured by the defendant. The contract between the two is in evidence. It is provided that the consignee shall receive a commission measured by its sales of the consigned instruments. Such sales may be made for cash or on credit. The credit sales to be first approved by the defendant in Chicago. The proceeds of cash sales to be transmitted also to Chicago.
The volume of the defendant's business throughout the United States is approximately ten million dollars per year in the sort of instruments that it consigns to Electro Ball Company of Dallas — about one-half million dollars representing the portion handled by the Electro Ball Company.
The defendant has no place of business in Texas, no selling agent in Texas, no property in Texas, has no permit to do business in Texas, nor any officer or office therein.
The plaintiff claims certain activities by the defendant in Texas. Among them is the employment of a man for the collection of delinquent accounts. The delinquent accounts arise out of credit sales made by the consignee, Electro Ball Company, which sales contracts are first approved by the defendant at Chicago. The man had no authority to settle or compromise an account, or to make extensions or to do anything but collect it, without first securing the permission by telegraph, telephone, or letter from his employer in Chicago.
A person by the name of Sterns, residing in Dallas, but with no headquarters here, traveled over Texas and eleven other states, for the defendant, receiving a substantial salary. His business was to promote sales — to "spread good will." He had no authority to sell or to make contracts or to collect. The testimony seems to indicate that he did make a sale to one Hagler. It does not satisfactorily appear, however, that this sale was more than an isolated transaction, and outside of Sterns' authority.
A man by the name of Brewer was employed by the Electro Ball Company to service the machines which it sold. The plaintiff seriously contends that Brewer was a joint employee of it and the defendant. The facts do not support that contention. Brewer received his payment from the Electro Ball Company and has worked for that company many years prior to the time it entered into a contract with the defendant. It alone has power to discharge him, and he receives all of his orders from it. That company retains the security tax which he is bounden to pay as the employee, and also pays the employer's portion of that tax. His salary is paid once a week by checks which were offered in evidence. At the expiration of the month, the amount of such payments is made known by the Electro Ball Company to the defendant, and the defendant then credits the Electro Ball Company's commission account with an equal ½ of the aggregate.
Testimony is that this additional commission was in recognition of a former contract which the Electro Ball Company had with the defendant, and which it wished to continue when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Favell-Utley Realty Co. v. Harbor Plywood Corp.
...such insufficient factors does not change the result; the corporation is still not doing business within the district. Oyler v. J. P. Seeburg Corp., D.C., 29 F.Supp. 927. It is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that the defendant Harbor Plywood Corporation was not and is not now doing b......
-
Radio Station WMFR v. Eitel-McCullough, Inc.
...a mere incident thereto.' 18 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, sec. 8714, n. 20, and cases cited thereunder. In Oyler v. J. P. Seebury Corporation, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 927, 928, a case markedly similar to this, the court, in sustaining the motion of defendant to quash service and dismiss the s......
-
Rosenthal v. Distillers Distributing Corp., Civ. A. No. 3910.
...cases as Street & Smith Publications v. Spikes, 5 Cir., 120 F.2d 895; Stoke v. Peter Fox Brewing Co., D.C., 22 F.Supp. 892; Oyler v. Seeburg, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 927; Elliott v. Standard Steel Wheel & Tire Armor Co., Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W. 616; 18 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations 418; 1 Confli......