Puget Sound Machinery Depot v. United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corp.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1923
• Docket Number: 7695.,7617
• Citation: 293 F. 768
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: PUGET SOUND MACHINERY DEPOT v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION. SKINNER & EDDY CORPORATION v. SAME.

293 F. 768

PUGET SOUND MACHINERY DEPOT v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION.

SKINNER & EDDY CORPORATION v. SAME.

Nos. 7617, 7695.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Northern Division.

November 23, 1923

Bronson Robinson & Jones, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff Puget Sound Machinery Depot.

Hastings & Stedman and Donworth, Todd & Higgins, all of Seattle Wash., for plaintiff Skinner & Eddy Corporation.

MacCormac Snow, of Portland, Or., Chas. E. Allen and Clarence L Reames, both of Seattle, Wash., and O. P. M. Brown, of Washington, D.C., for defendant.

CUSHMAN District Judge.

A number of motions in the two above-entitled causes were heard together. In each the plaintiff sued upon contract in the state court. The defendant removed both causes to this court. The defendant appears specially and moves to quash the service of summons and dismiss, upon the ground that the defendant is not doing business in this state, and was not at the time of service of summons, and upon the further ground that the persons served were not qualified under the law to accept service.

It is contended upon the part of the plaintiff in each suit that defendant has entered a general appearance and cannot now be heard on the motion to quash. Owing to the conclusion reached upon the merits of defendant's motions to quash, it is not necessary to determine whether defendant appeared generally, prior to filing its 'special Appearance.' In the one suit there is no record of the return of service of summons; but it appears from the affidavits that in both cases service was made upon A. R. Lintner, acting director agent, and manager of defendant. This service was sufficient to confer jurisdiction, providing the defendant was, in fact, doing business in the district at the time of such service.

Defendant's main contention is that it can only be sued in the District of Columbia, where it was incorporated; that it has not been doing business in this state; that such business as it does or has done, in the state of Washington, was as agent of the United States, and not for its own private gain or advantage. The affidavits show that offices were rented and occupied by the defendant in the city of Seattle; that in making rental arrangements the lessor was not informed that defendant was securing the lease other than as principal. It is shown that the defendant kept in its name deposits in Seattle banks upon which it, through one of its officers resident in Seattle, drew checks for the purchase of supplies in Seattle; that since the service of process in this cause the form of check given by the defendant has been changed by adding, after the words 'United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation,' the word 'Agent.'

At the time of service, and prior thereto, on the streets in the city of Tacoma, street cars were operated bearing the designation 'United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, owner'; that the cars were operated by the city of Tacoma under a conditional sale contract; that between ports in this district and Asiatic ports a line of steamships was and is being operated under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 988); that the company selling the passenger and freight service thereon is the Admiralty Oriental Line. In its literature it is described as 'managing agents, United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation.' It is so described in the forms of its bills of lading and passenger tariffs. Concerning the operation of these vessels, defendant has filed the affidavit of Joseph E. Sheeday, vice president of the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, in charge of the operations of the corporation. In his affidavit, among other things, he says:

'That pursuant to the power and authority conferred upon the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation by law and by said resolution of September 30, 1921, passed and adopted by the United States Shipping Board, and to carry out the will and intent of Congress as set forth in section 12 of said Merchant Marine Act 1920, the corporation did, on November 1, 1922, acting for and upon behalf of the United States of America, as represented by the United States Shipping Board, and not upon its own behalf or in connection with any business from which defendant corporation could or would derive any pecuniary gain and benefit, execute a certain contract and agency agreement with Admiral Oriental Line, a corporation, whereby provision was made for the operation by the said Admiral Oriental Line for the United States Shipping Board of vessels of the United States. * * * That, pursuant to the provisions of said agency contract and amendments thereto with said Admiral Oriental Line, certain ships owned by the United States of America and controlled by the United States Shipping Board have been operated, into and from the port of Seattle and other ports, for the United States, by the said Admiral Oriental Line, under the supervision and oversight of the defendant corporation, acting for the United States of America, pursuant to the power and authority vested in the defendant corporation by law and by the board resolution of September 30, 1921, hereinabove referred to, and the five passenger ships, mentioned in the affidavit of T. B. Owen, filed in this cause, were at the time of service of process in this case and are now, and have been since November 1, 1922, some of the ships so operated by the Admiral Oriental Line for the United States of America.'

It further appears that defendant was, at the time of service of process, occupying the land constituting the Skinner & Eddy shipbuilding plant No. 2, at Seattle, and that from the concentration yard upon such...