Robert Mitchell Furniture Co v. Selden Breck Const Co, 56

Decision Date05 December 1921
Docket NumberNo. 56,56
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Leo J. Brumleve, Jr., and Walter A. De Camp. both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Simeon Nash and Curtis C. Williams, both of Columbus, Ohio, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is here on error to a judgment of the District Court that held the summons in the suit void and, on the plaintiff's statement that it could not secure service otherwise, dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. An appeal to this Court lies in such a case. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Hammond Elevator Co., 198 U. S. 424, 25 Sup. Ct. 740, 49 L. Ed. 1111. The material facts are as follows: The action is brought by an Ohio corporation upon a contract made with the defendant, a Missouri corporation, to deliver 'f. o. b. cars Ann Arbor, Michigan,' specified woodwork for the library building of the University of Michigan, upon which the defendant was engaged. The contract was made by correspondence between the plaintiff in Cincinnati and the defendant in Chicago, and would seem from the affidavits and exhibits to have become operative by the posting of a letter of the defendant accepting corrections, at Chicago, on February 10, 1917, although by the declaration it is alleged to have been made in Cincinnati. Beaumont v. Prieto, 249 U. S 554, 29 Sup. Ct. 383, 63 L. Ed. 770. The defendant is a contractor, constructing buildings and the like, and, being a foreign corporation, in 1910 had designated Simeon Nash as a person upon whom process against it could be served within the State of Ohio, as required by statute. Subsequently it constructed buildings in Ohio, but its last work was finished on October 29, 1918, and its workmen and property were withdrawn from the State. Since that date it has made no bids for work there. This action was begun on April 5, 1919, in a State Court of Ohio, but afterwards was removed to the District Court of the United States. The only service was upon Nash, and the question is whether it was sufficient in the circumstances set forth.

An annual report is required by Gen. Code, § 5499, for foreign corporations for profit doing business in the State. The defendant filed such a report in July, 1919, after the service, and no doubt would have been ready to bid upon Ohio contracts that seemed to it tempting, as it had done in the past. The plaintiff contends that these facts show that it was doing business in Ohio when the writ was served. The defendant says that the report was necessary for the ascertainment of taxes due from it for the last financial year, but it may be assumed that the wish to keep open the possibility of further employment was a contributing motive. It did nothing, however, and it contends...

To continue reading

Request your trial
125 cases
  • Aybar v. Aybar
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 7, 2021
    ...decisions have the same effect as statutes: each sets out what the law is ( Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Const. Co., 257 U.S. 213, 216, 42 S.Ct. 84, 66 L.Ed. 201 [1921] ). More to the point here, Bagdon and several of our predecessor cases have construed the relevant statut......
  • Chavez v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 15, 2021
    ...agent] is constitutional, and the designation of the agent ‘a voluntary act’ "); Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Constr. Co. , 257 U.S. 213, 215-16, 42 S.Ct. 84, 66 L.Ed. 201 (1921) ("Of course when a foreign corporation appoints one as required by statute it takes the risk of......
  • In re Puerto Rico Air Disaster Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • March 7, 1972
    ...upon the filing of the complaint, usually earlier than the date of service of process. See Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Const. Co., 257 U.S. 213, 42 S.Ct. 84, 66 L.Ed. 201 (1921); Herpst v. S.B.I. Liquidating Corp., 279 F.Supp. 928 (E.D. Pa.1968); Proler Steel Corp. v. Luri......
  • Fidrych v. Marriott Int'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • March 2, 2020
    ...Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. , 243 U.S. 93, 37 S.Ct. 344, 61 L.Ed. 610 (1917), and Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Construction Co. , 257 U.S. 213, 42 S.Ct. 84, 66 L.Ed. 201 (1921), both decided well before the development of the minimum-contacts-focused approach expressed ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Registration, Fairness, and General Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 95, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining and Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93, 96 (1917); Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Constr. Co., 257 U.S. 213, 214-16 (1921); Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165, 167-75 (1939); see also Forest Labs., Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceutical......
  • Personal Jurisdiction and the Fairness Factor(s)
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 72-4, 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...(1917).337. Id.338. Id.339. Id.340. Id. 341. Id. at 94-95.342. Id. at 95.343. Id. at 97.344. Id. at 96.345. Id. at 95.346. Id. at 97.347. 257 U.S. 213, 216 (1921).348. 257 U.S. 533, 535 (1922).349. See Selden Breck Constr., 257 U.S. at 216; Mo. Pac. R.R., 257 U.S. at 535.350. See cases cite......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT