State ex rel. The Eau Claire Dells Improvement Co. v. District Court For Ramsey County
| Decision Date | 18 October 1879 |
| Citation | 2 N.W. 698,26 Minn. 233 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, ex rel. the Eau Claire Dells Improvement Company, v. District Court for Ramsey County and others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
James McIntire and others, partners in business in the state of Wisconsin, filed their complaint in the district court for Ramsey county against the Eau Claire Dells Improvement Company, a Wisconsin corporation, having no agent or place of business in this state. The action was upon contracts made and to be executed in Wisconsin. A summons was issued and was served by the sheriff of Ramsey county at the city of St Paul, in that county, by delivering a copy thereof to the president of the company, who was then within this state, not on any business of the company, but for his own personal business and pleasure, and who had no authority from the company to receive such service. The company appeared specially in the action for the sole purpose of a motion to set aside the service of the summons, which motion was, after argument, denied by the district court. Thereupon the company obtained from this court a writ of prohibition to restrain further proceedings in the action. The respondents made due return to the writ, and moved that it be quashed.
Writ quashed.
Davis O'Brien & Wilson, and L. M. Vilas, for relator.
Geo. L. & Chas. E. Otis, for respondents.
The question sought to be raised in this proceeding is, can the courts of this state acquire jurisdiction over the person of a corporation created under the laws of another state, where the cause of action arose out of this state, and the corporation has no property therein, and never transacted any business, nor had any office, or agency, or officer, or agent therein, and the only ground for asserting such jurisdiction is that the summons was served within the state upon an officer of the corporation, who was in the state, not upon any business, nor by any authority of the corporation, but solely in a private capacity, and for his own private business or pleasure? The relator first raised the question in the district court, by a motion, upon affidavits showing the facts, to set aside such a service of the summons, which motion being denied, it procured this writ of prohibition to issue.
We have very little doubt that if the question were properly before us for decision, we should sustain the objection to the jurisdiction. The facts in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial