E. R. Callender Printing Co. Inc. v. Dist. Court In and For Second Judicial Dist.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25947,25947 |
| Citation | 510 P.2d 889,182 Colo. 25 |
| Parties | E.R. CALLENDER PRINTING COMPANY, INC. and E.R. Callender, Petitioners, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT and State ofColorado, and John Brooks, Jr., one of the Judges thereof, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Craig A. Murdock, Denver, for petitioners.
Herbert A. Shatz, Denver, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding under C.A.R. 21 in the nature of prohibition. We issued our rule to show cause. The matter is now at issue and, having considered the merits of the controversy, we reverse the ruling of the trial court and make the rule absolute.
Whitco Magnetics Supply Corp. (Whitco), a Colorado corporation, brought an action in the Denver district court to cllect a balance allegedly due for goods and merchandise sold to E.R. Callender Printing Company, Inc. and E.R. Callender (petitioners).
Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(2), petitioners appeared specially and moved to quash service of process and to dismiss the complaint, contending that the Denver district court lacked In personam jurisdiction over them. The court denied the motion and petitioners then applied to this Court for relief.
The record reveals that Whitco, through its president, Dennis V. Whittington, solicited an order for sale of goods and merchandise to petitioners in Kansas. Although the printed contract states the order was accepted by Whitco in Denver, Colorado, petitioners' uncontested affidavit shows that the contract was actually executed and accepted by Whitco's president in Kansas City, Kansas. The affidavit further states that petitioners had never been in Colorado in connection with this contract and had never done any business in the state of Colorado.
The question for determination is whether petitioners' contacts with Colorado were sufficient to bring them within the scope of the Colorado long-arm statute, 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 37--1--26, so as to subject petitioners to the jurisdiction of the Colorado courts. The statute provides in part:
'Jurisdiction of courts.--(1)(a) Engaging in any act enumerated in this section by any person, whether or not a resident of the state of Colorado, either in person or by an agent, submits such person, and, if a natural person his personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, concerning any cause of action arising from:
'(b) The transaction of any business within this state; * * *'
For jurisdiction to attach under this provision of the statute, this Court in numerous decisions has held, pursuant to United States Supreme Court guidelines, that certain 'minimum contacts' between the forum state and the defendant are necessary in order not to offend traditional notions of due process, fair play, and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95; People ex rel. Jeffers v. Gibson, Colo., 508 P.2d 374; Granite States Volkswagen, Inc. v. District Court, Colo., 492 P.2d 624; Czarnick v. Dist. Ct., 175 Colo. 482, 488 P.2d 562; Safari Outfitters Inc. v. Superior Ct., 167 Colo. 456, 448 P.2d 783; Perlman v. Great States, 164 Colo. 493, 436 P.2d 124; Vandermee v. Dist. Ct., 164 Colo. 117, 433 P.2d 335; Knight v. Dist. Court, 162 Colo. 14, 424 P.2d 110; White-Rodgers Co. v. Dist. Ct., 160 Colo. 491, 418 P.2d 527.
It readily appears that petitioners did not have sufficient contacts with Colorado to merit In personam jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court stated in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, '* * * (I)t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.' See also, Safari Outfitters, Inc. v. Superior Ct., Supra. Here, petitioners' only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruggieri v. General Well Service, Inc.
...forum-state seller, after the seller had solicited the order, then personal jurisdiction is not proper. E. R. Callender Printing Co. v. District Court, 182 Colo. 25, 510 P.2d 889 (1973). If the defendant has substantial and continuous business contacts with the forum state, then he will be ......
-
Lakeside Bridge Steel Co v. Mountain State Construction Co Inc 376, 79-
...Corp. v. United Aircraft Corp., 482 F.2d 1079, 1084-1085 (CA1 1973) (construing state law); E. R. Callender Printing Co. v. District Court, 182 Colo. 25, 510 P.2d 889 (1973) (en banc) (construing state law); Rath Packing Co. v. Intercontinental Meat Traders, Inc., 181 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 1970)......
-
Microelectronic Systems Corp. v. Bamberger's
...437 (1974); Architectural Building Components Corp. v. Comfort, 528 P.2d 307 (Okl.1974); Callender Printing Co. v. District Court In and For Second Judicial District, 182 Colo. 25, 510 P.2d 889 (1973); NRM Corp. v. Pacific Plastic Pipe Co., 36 Ohio App.2d 179, 304 N.E.2d 248 ...
-
Jenkins v. Glen and Helen Aircraft, Inc., 77-1009
...facts established the contrary; therefore in personam jurisdiction over defendants did not lie. E. R. Callender Printing Co. v. District Court, 182 Colo. 25, 510 P.2d 889 (1973). Plaintiff contends that the allegations in the complaint controverted the facts asserted by defendants. However,......