Powers v. Iowa Harvestore Systems, Inc., 55368
| Citation | 204 N.W.2d 623 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 55368,55368 |
| Parties | Leo J. POWERS, Appellant, v. IOWA HARVESTORE SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Mullin, Mullin, McLaughlin & Harvey, Creston, and Williams & Hart, Des Moines, for appellant.
Putnam, Putnam & Putnam, Des Moines, for appellees Advanced Feeding Systems, Inc., and Harper & Sauder, Inc.
Heard by MOORE, C.J., and LeGRAND, REES, UHLENHOPP and McCORMICK, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order of trial court sustaining special appearances by two nonresident corporate defendants, service upon whom was purported to have been made under section 617.3, The Code, 1971, which is commonly known as the 'Iowa Long Arm Statute'. The principal place of business of both appellees-defendants is, or was, Eureka, Illinois.
The action was commenced at law by plaintiff against eight defendants, two individual defendants and six corporate defendants. The action was for damages plaintiff claimed to have sustained when he came in contact with an impeller or other moving parts of a feeding-system machine which plaintiff claims was sold and installed by defendants. No attack was apparently made upon the jurisdiction obtained by plaintiff of the other six defendants.
The record indicates defendant Advanced Feeding Systems, Inc. was dissolved on June 11, 1970, and defendant Harper & Sauder, Inc. was dissolved on October 28, 1970.
The Iowa long arm statute, section 617.3, The Code, 1971, provides in pertinent part:
The portions of the cited section not set out above are not material to the questions presented by this appeal.
It is the contention of plaintiff that trial court erred in sustaining the special appearances of defendants Advanced Feeding Systems, Inc. and Harper & Sauder, Inc., and in finding that plaintiff had failed to substantially comply with section 617.3, The Code, 1971, by mailing notice to the secretary of state of Illinois instead of to the address of the principal office of the two defendants in the state of Illinois, the state under the laws of which both appellees-defendants had been incorporated.
In an attempt to comply with the provisions of section 617.3, The Code, 1971, plaintiff's counsel filed with the secretary of state of Iowa original notices directed to both Advanced and Harper, the appellees here. The original notice bearing the filing stamp of the secretary of state of Iowa was filed with the clerk of the district court of Union County, together with the certificate of the secretary of state and the receipt for the required fee. No mailing of notification to Advanced or Harper was made to such defendants at their principal offices in the state of Illinois. Instead, a notice was mailed by counsel for plaintiff to 'Harper & Sauder, Inc., c/o Secretary of State, State of Illinois,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeCook v. Environmental Sec. Corp., Inc.
...contention as to absence of compliance with procedural requisites established by Code § 617.3. See Powers v. Iowa Harvestore Systems, Inc., 204 N.W.2d 623, 624-625 (Iowa 1973). Specifically, defendants urge plaintiffs have failed to effect proper proof of service. See generally Boyer v. Bro......
-
Barrett v. Bryant
...jurisdiction. Therefore clear and complete compliance with its provisions is required. See, e. g., Powers v. Iowa Harvestore Systems, Inc., 204 N.W.2d 623, 624-25 (Iowa 1973). An exception exists as to the language used in the notification of filing and original notice because the statute o......
-
Schumacher Elevator Co., Inc. v. Springfield Elevator Co., Inc.
...917, 922 (Iowa 1980); Buena Vista Manor v. Century Manufacturing Co., 221 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Iowa 1974); Powers v. Iowa Harvestore Systems, Inc., 204 N.W.2d 623, 624-25 (Iowa 1973). Defendant lists several reasons the record of the Iowa court allegedly fails to establish defendant was served ......