State v. Superior Court of Washington for Grays Harbor County

• Decision Date: 05 May 1927
• Docket Number: 20541.
• Citation: 143 Wash. 641,255 P. 1030
• Parties: STATE ex rel. NEW YORK OIL CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

255 P. 1030

143 Wash. 641

STATE ex rel. NEW YORK OIL CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY et al.

No. 20541.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 5, 1927

Department 1.

Original application for writ of prohibition by the State of Washington, on the relation of the New York Oil Company against the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Grays Harbor County; Fred G. Remann, Judge. Writ denied.

John C Hogan, of Aberdeen, for relator.

G. W Korte and Hartman & Hartman, all of Seattle, and W. H. Abel of Montesano, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original application in this court for a writ of prohibition on the relation of the New York Oil Company, a corporation. The respondent, the superior court of Grays Harbor County, Hon. Fred G. Remann, Judge, has made and filed a return to an alternative writ heretofore issued. Action for breach of contract was commenced in the superior court of Grays Harbor county by Dorsey Hager et al against the New York Oil Company of Wyoming and the New York Oil & Gas Company, a corporation of this state. Summons and complaint were served on the New York Oil Company, by delivering to and leaving with one Holton as agent of that corporation a copy of the summons and complaint in Grays Harbor county. Upon return of that service the New York Oil Company, appearing specially, moved to quash the service and objected to the jurisdiction of the court to proceed against such corporation, alleging it to be a resident of the state of Wyoming and not transacting business in this state, nor having any office in this state, nor officer resident in this state, and that Holton was not its agent. The question was tried out before the respondent as judge of the superior court, who found against the New York Oil Company and entered an order accordingly; hence the present application to this court.

There is no question but that some one was doing business in Grays Harbor county out of which the cause of action arose, and that Holton was an agent of such one at that time, and at the time of the service upon him looking after and transacting the business in that county. The contention of the petitioner relator, however, is that the business was being transacted by and that Holton was the agent of the New York Oil & Gas Company, and not of the New York Oil Company.

Upon the arguments of counsel and consideration of the record, we are satisfied the trial...