Raymond v. ANTHONY COMPANY
| Decision Date | 14 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 183-64. |
| Citation | 233 F. Supp. 305 |
| Parties | Clifford RAYMOND, Iron River, Michigan, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY COMPANY, Streator, Illinois, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Carretta & Counihan, John T. McMahon, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
This matter comes before the Court on a "Motion to Quash Service of Process and to Dismiss the Complaint" filed on March 17, 1964 on behalf of defendant.
The plaintiff is a resident of Michigan and asserts certain patents which are in his name. The original complaint sued on the patents, but was subsequently amended and now concerns only the alleged violations of license agreements for the right to manufacture and sell the subject matter of the patents.
The defendant is incorporated under the laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business in Streator, Illinois. Defendant maintains an office within the District of Columbia at 815 Fifteenth Street, N. W. According to the defendant its Washington office is maintained for the purpose of transacting a substantial amount of business with the Federal Government. Defendant further maintains liaison with the Government so that various problems and difficulties which arise in a contractural relationship can be disposed of with a minimum of inconvenience. The facts further disclose that defendant has only one full-time employee in the District of Columbia.
The motion alleges defendant is not "doing business" within the terms of Section 13-334(a) of the District of Columbia Code. Defendant relies on Mueller Brass Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co., 80 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 152 F.2d 142 (1945) and on Traher v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., 111 U.S.App. D.C. 33, 294 F.2d 229 (1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 954, 82 S.Ct. 397, 7 L.Ed.2d 387 (1962).
The plaintiff asserts that defendant is doing business within the District of Columbia; that in addition to maintaining an office, the defendant does an annual business of $1,500,000 with the Government; and that the contract between defendant and the Marine Corps, out of which this action derives, was in the amount of $3,435,816.46. Plaintiff further asserts that Mr. Bowie, defendant's Washington representative, holds himself out as assistant to the president of the Anthony Company.
As far as this court is concerned, the primary issues are: what are the duties of the defendant's agent in the District of Columbia; and whether these duties constitute "doing business" under Section 13-334(a) of the D.C.Code.
In an affidavit Mr. Carl W. Bowie, the local employee of defendant, states that he endeavors to keep the company informed as to the Government's present and potential use requirements for Anthony's products; that he "services" the company's current contracts with the Government, that is, in solving various problems which arise. Mr. Bowie then states as follows:
It is the opinion of this Court that the defendant herein is doing business in the District of Columbia under the standard of solicitation plus maintaining regular business activities as established in Frene et al. v. Louisville Cement Co., 77 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 134 F.2d 511, 146 A.L.R. 926 (1943).
In that case, service of process was quashed by the District Court. The complaint was based on defendant's alleged false representations in inducing plaintiff to use their patented cement product. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that defendant was "doing business" in the District.
The facts in Louisville Cement indicate that the defendant did not maintain an office in the District of Columbia; that it did retain a full time agent who resided and worked out of his home in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The agent had authority to solicit orders for defendant's products, but he had no authority to conclude contracts or to make binding sales. Orders were forwarded to the main office in Louisville, Kentucky, where they were either rejected or accepted. The agent would frequently visit jobs on which the products were being used and assist in any difficulties which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SIAM KRAFT P. CO., LTD. v. Parsons & Whittemore, Inc.
...plaintiff attempts to distinguish the instant case as involving "commercial" contacts with the Government, relying on Raymond v. Anthony, 233 F.Supp. 305 (D.D.C.1964). The Raymond case involved an Illinois corporate defendant which regularly sold its products to the Government and maintaine......