Rosenberg Bros Co v. Curtis Brown Co
| Decision Date | 02 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 102,102 |
| Citation | 260 U.S. 516,43 S.Ct. 170,67 L.Ed. 372 |
| Parties | ROSENBERG BROS. & CO., Inc., v. CURTIS BROWN CO |
| Court | U.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.
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
-
International Shoe Co. v. State
... ... 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
...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
...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.
...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.......
-
FORD MOTOR CO. V. MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT AND "CORPORATE TAG JURISDICTION" IN THE PENNOYER ERA.
...(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, ......
-
FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES, NON-SIGNATORIES, AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION.
...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
..."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 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......