Thiel v. Electric Sales & Supply Co.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2698. |
| Citation | 187 F. Supp. 640 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Joseph A. THIEL, Plaintiff, v. ELECTRIC SALES & SUPPLY CO., Inc. and Holub Industries, Inc., Defendants. |
Holcombe & Bomar, Spartanburg, S. C., Alfred W. Petchaft, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
L. Paul Barnes, Spartanburg, S. C., Mann, Brown & McWilliams, Chicago, Ill., for defendant Holub Industries, Inc.
The above case is before me upon motion of the defendant Holub Industries, Inc. (1) to quash the purported service of process upon Holub Industries, Inc., (2) to dismiss the complaint as to Holub Industries, Inc. for lack of jurisdiction, upon the grounds stated in the motion.
This is a patent suit alleging infringement of United States Letters Patent No. 2,885,169.
The defendant Holub Industries, Inc. is a corporation of the State of Illinois, having its principal place of business in that State and has never taken any action to comply with the South Carolina Code of Laws governing foreign corporations doing business within the State of South Carolina. The defendant Holub Industries, Inc. employs a sales agent, the Bennett Rose Company of Charlotte, North Carolina, to act for it within the State of South Carolina, and to solicit orders within the State of South Carolina, for and on behalf of the defendant Holub Industries, Inc.
The sales agent has solicited such orders and the merchandise accused as an infringement of the aforesaid Letters Patent was sold by Holub Industries, Inc. to its co-defendant Electric Sales and Supply Co., Inc. upon an order taken within the State of South Carolina, by its sales agent.
The merchandise was shipped by Holub Industries, Inc. to its co-defendant Electric Sales and Supply Co., Inc., such merchandise being actually delivered to its co-defendant Electric Sales and Supply Co., Inc. in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and paid for by the co-defendant. The transaction was a contract of sale between Electric Sales and Supply Co., Inc., a corporation of the State of South Carolina, and Holub Industries, Inc., a foreign corporation, which contract involved the taking of payment or valuable consideration under and in performance of such contract.
Service upon Holub Industries, Inc. has been effected by service upon the Secretary of State of South Carolina.
This Court has jurisdiction under the Patent Laws of the United States and venue is governed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1400(b).
Inasmuch as the sale of allegedly infringing merchandise by Holub Industries, Inc. is a contract between a foreign corporation and a corporation of the State of South Carolina, involving the payment of valuable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holub Industries, Inc. v. Wyche
...Carolina, requiring him to vacate an order passed by him on October 8, 1960, in the case of Thiel v. Electric Sales and Supply Company and Holub Industries, Incorporated, D.C., 187 F.Supp. 640. The burden of the petition is that the District Court lacks jurisdiction over the petitioner in t......
-
Brevel Products Corp. v. H & B AMERICAN CORPORATION
...cases was specifically rejected in Mastantuono v. Jacobsen Mfg. Co., supra. A similar situation arose in Thiel v. Electric Sales & Supply Co., 187 F.Supp. 640 (W.D.S.C.1960), in which the district court held that where a foreign corporation solicited sales within South Carolina, without reg......
-
Joseph G. Moretti, Inc. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
...F.Supp. 355 (D.C., 1961); Kelly v. U. S. Steel, a Pennsylvania case, 198 F.Supp. 640 (D.C., 1960); Thiel v. Electric Sales & Supply Co., a South Carolina case, 187 F.Supp. 640 (D.C., 1960). There have been many decisions in the state courts of California on the question of what constitutes ......
-
Thiel v. Electric Sales & Supply Co.
...South Carolina. The motion was denied and Holub Industries, Incorporated, was given twenty days within which to answer the complaint. D.C., 187 F.Supp. 640. Thereafter on October 25, 1960, Holub Industries, Incorporated, moved the court to amend its order so as to permit an appeal therefrom......