Rosenberg Bros Co v. Curtis Brown Co

Decision Date02 January 1923
Docket NumberNo. 102,102
Citation260 U.S. 516,43 S.Ct. 170,67 L.Ed. 372
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. G. H. Harris, of Rochester, N. Y., and Manton M. Wyvell, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. H. Corn, of New York City, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Rosenberg Bros. & Co., Inc., a New York corporation, brought this suit in the Supreme Court of that state against Curtis Brown Company, an Oklahoma corporation. The only service of process made was by delivery of a summons to defendant's president while he was temporarily in New York. Defendant appeared specially; moved to quash the summons on the ground that the corporation was not found within the state, and, after evidence was taken but before hearing on the motion, removed the case to the federal court for the Western District of New York. There the motion to quash was granted, upon the ground that the defendant was not amenable to the process of the state court at the time of the service of the summons. A writ of error was sued out under section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215), and the question of jurisdiction was duly certified. The order entered below, although in form an order to quash the summons, and not a dismissal of the suit, is a final judgment, and the case is properly here. Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 15 Sup. Ct. 559, 39 L. Ed. 517; Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U. S. 406, 23 Sup. Ct. 728, 47 L. Ed. 1113. Compare The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216, 217, 41 Sup. Ct. 308, 65 L. Ed. 592.

The sole question for decision is whether, at the time of the service of process, defendant was doing business within the state of New York in such manner and to such extent as to warrant the inference that it was present there. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 265, 37 Sup. Ct. 280, 61 L. Ed. 710. The District Court found that it was not. That decision was clearly correct. The Curtis Brown Company is a small retail dealer in men's clothing and furnishings at Tulsa, Okl. It never applied, under the foreign corporation laws, for a license to do business in New York; nor did it at any time authorize suit to be brought against it there. It never had an established place of business in New York; nor did it, without having such established place, regularly carry on business there. It had no property in New York, and had no officer, agent, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
234 cases
  • International Shoe Co. v. State
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1945
    ... ... In the ... case of Harbich v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., D.C., 1 ... F.Supp. 63, the Federal district court for ... 233, 62 L.Ed. 587, Ann.Cas.1918C, 537; Rosenberg Co. v ... Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. [516] at page 517, 43 S.Ct ... ...
  • Fraley v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • January 23, 1969
    ...but the business was continuous and substantial. Purchases, though carried on regularly, are not enough (Rosenberg Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372), nor are the activities of subsidiary corporations (Peterson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 364, 27......
  • International Shoe Co v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1945
    ...or liability on the corporation has not been thought to confer upon the state authority to enforce it, Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372, other such acts, because of their nature and quality and the circumstances of their commission, may be ......
  • Moss v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 9, 1938
    ...a final appealable order and no appeal therefrom was allowed within three months thereafter. In Rosenberg Bros. & Co., Inc., v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 517, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372, it was squarely held that an order quashing service on the defendant was a final appealable order.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 No. 1, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...(77.) See Ford, 141 S. Ct. at 1037-38, 1039 n.5 (2021) (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (citing Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 517-18 (78.) See, e.g., J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 877-79 (2011). (79.) See Borchers, Limited Legacy, supra note 33, ......
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 No. 1, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...within the State, and not charged with any business of the corporation there."); Rosenberg Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516 (1923); Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding that the Supreme Court "has required an analysis of a corporati......
  • Registration, Fairness, and General Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 95, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ..."purchases and related trips" are not sufficient for general jurisdiction. Id. at 417 (citing Rosenberg Bros. and Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 518 131. Id. at 413-18. 132. Id. at 416-18. 133. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2854 (2011). 134. Id. (......
  • Comments on the Roundtable Discussion of Choice of Law - Russell J. Weintraub
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 48-2, January 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...United States workers in Peru and that had extensive business contacts with the forum, relying on Rosenberg Bros. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516 (1923), which was decided 22 years before International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), ushered in a new jurisdictional regime). I......

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