Phillips v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., No. 1
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | STEVENS |
| Citation | 2 Ariz.App. 267,407 P.2d 948 |
| Decision Date | 24 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1 |
| Parties | Vivian PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. ANCHOR HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, Appellee. * 54. |
Page 948
v.
ANCHOR HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, Appellee. *
Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1965.
[2 Ariz.App. 268]
Page 949
McKesson, Renaud, Cook & Miller, by Joseph B. Miller, Sidney S. Pearce, Jr., Phoenix, for appellant.Shimmel, Hill, Kleindienst & Bishop, by Richard A. Black, Phoenix, for appellee.
STEVENS, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from the decree and judgment of the lower court granting the defendant-appellee's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for want of jurisdiction.
On 13 December 1961, the plaintiff, Vivian Phillips, brought this action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County against Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, for breach of express and implied warranties. In the complaint plaintiff alleged that she was injured when a baking dish manufactured by the defendant broke on 14 February 1960 while being used by her in her home in Phoenix, Arizona. The allegations of plaintiff's complaint established that the defendant was an Ohio corporation, that it did 'business and maintains offices and effects in Lancaster, Ohio,' and that plaintiff purchased one of the defendant's products from the defendant. The record is silent as to the place of purchase.
The defendant manufacturer was served by registered mail under the provisions of Rule 4(e)(2), as amended, of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. In part the rule reads as follows:
'4(e)(2) Summons; personal service out of state. When the defendant * * * is a corporation doing business in this state, or is a * * * corporation * * * which has caused an event to occur in this state out of which the claim which is the subject of the complaint arose, service may be made as herein provided, and when so made shall be of the same effect as personal service within the state. * * *'
The plaintiff contended that the defendant caused an event to occur in this State out of which the claim which is the subject of the complaint arose.
[2 Ariz.App. 269]
Page 950
The defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for want of jurisdiction. An affidavit filed in conjunction with the defendant's motion to dismiss stated that as of the times alleged in the complaint and up to the date of the affidavit, the defendant had manufactured all of its products outside of the State of Arizona and had no real property, offices, manufacturing facilities, storage...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., No. 48077
...224 F.Supp. 90; United Barge Co. v. Logan Charter Service, Inc., D.C., 237 F.Supp. 624; Phillips v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 2 Ariz.App. 267, 407 P.2d 948; Hicks v. Crane Co., D.C., 235 F.Supp. 609; Mladinich v. Kohn, 250 Miss. 138, 164 So.2d 785; Eicher-Woodland Co., Inc. v. Buffa......
-
Phillips v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., No. 7839
...Supreme Court and A.R.S. § 12-- [100 Ariz. 253] 120.24, we granted a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals reported in 2 Ariz.App. 267, 407 P.2d 948. The Court of Appeals, Division I, affirmed the judgment of the Maricopa County Superior Court which dismissed the complaint......
-
Morrison v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., No. 48077
...224 F.Supp. 90; United Barge Co. v. Logan Charter Service, Inc., D.C., 237 F.Supp. 624; Phillips v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 2 Ariz.App. 267, 407 P.2d 948; Hicks v. Crane Co., D.C., 235 F.Supp. 609; Mladinich v. Kohn, 250 Miss. 138, 164 So.2d 785; Eicher-Woodland Co., Inc. v. Buffa......
-
Phillips v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., No. 7839
...Supreme Court and A.R.S. § 12-- [100 Ariz. 253] 120.24, we granted a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals reported in 2 Ariz.App. 267, 407 P.2d 948. The Court of Appeals, Division I, affirmed the judgment of the Maricopa County Superior Court which dismissed the complaint......