St. Louis Wire-Mill Co. v. Consolidated Barb-Wire Co.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1887
• Parties: ST. LOUIS WIRE-MILL CO. v. CONSOLIDATED BARB-WIRE CO. and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

32 F. 802

ST. LOUIS WIRE-MILL CO. v. CONSOLIDATED BARB-WIRE CO. and others.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

November 9, 1887

Leo Rassieur and Dexter Tiffany, for plaintiff.

Torrey & Givan, for defendant.

THAYER J., (orally.)

The case of the St. Louis Wire-Mill Company against the Consolidated Barb-Wire Company comes before the court on a plea to the jurisdiction and upon the testimony offered in support of and in opposition to that plea. The plea to the jurisdiction filed by the defendant, a foreign corporation raises the question of the sufficiency of the service to bring the corporation within the jurisdiction of this court. Service was had upon a person by the name of A. A. Henley, who is described in the return as 'secretary and agent of the defendant corporation,' and it was had under section 3489 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, which provides 'that a summons shall be executed where the defendant is a corporation or a joint-stock company organized under the laws of any other state or country, and having an office or place of doing business in this state, by delivering a copy of the writ and petition to any officer or agent of such corporation or company in charge of any office or place of business, or, if it have no office or place of business, then to any officer agent, or employe in any county where such service may be obtained.'

The testimony shows that the defendant corporation, created by the laws of Kansas, has its chief office or place of business at Lawrence, Kansas; that it has never had a business office in the state of Missouri, and has not maintained an agent in this state for the transaction of any business. It appears that it has made occasional purchases of plain wire in the city of St. Louis, either by correspondence or by sending an agent here for that purpose. It also appears that in December, 1885, A. A. Henley, who was served with process in this case, purchased of this plaintiff, in the city of St Louis, about 500 tons of wire. Subsequently a controversy arose as to the terms of purchase. That controversy remained open and unadjusted until after the sixth of October, 1886, at which time Henley and his wife, as the testimony shows, came to this city for the purpose of attending the St. Louis fair. While here he was called upon at his hotel by the secretary of the plaintiff who had in view an adjustment of the old account. Some conversation was had on that subject. The parties failing to agree, the secretary of the plaintiff and Mr. Henley proceeded to the office of the Southern Wire Company to confer with other officers of the plaintiff corporation with respect to a settlement. Further conversation took place on the subject at the office of the Southern Wire Company; but it resulted in the parties failing to come to any understanding. While at the office of the Southern Wire Company, Henley it appears, asked the officers of that company to give him a quotation upon 500 tons of plain wire, as if he desired to make such a purchase. No quotation was given him, however, and no purchase was made. After Henley left the office of the Southern Wire Company, and within a few hours, he was served with process in this suit as being an agent of the defendant. This is a sufficient statement of the facts in the case for the purposes of the present decision.

Chief Justice WAITE remarked, in Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 10: 'It is now well settled that a corporation of one state, doing business is another, is suable where its business is done if the laws make provision to that effect ' And in the case of the Insurance Co. v. Woodruff, 111 U.S. 146, 4 S.Ct. 364, it was said by Justice BLATCHFORD 'that a corporation of one state doing business in another is suable in the courts of the United States established in the latter state, if the laws of that state so provide, and in the manner provided by those laws,' citing the cases of ...