Traher v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 16098.,16098. |
| Parties | Ralph H. TRAHER et al., Appellants, v. DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA, LTD., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. I. Irwin, Bolotin, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Philip J. Lesser, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Frank F. Roberson, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. David N. Webster, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before PRETTYMAN, WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied August 23, 1961.
Appellants, residents of Minnesota, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to recover for injuries sustained in an airplane crash in Montana, allegedly caused by the negligence of appellee, a Canadian corporation. Service of process was sought to be made by serving the appellee's sole employee in the District of Columbia. Appellee's moved to quash service of process upon it on the ground that it was not "doing business in the District" within the meaning of D.C.Code, § 13-103. Appellee's motion was granted, and this appeal followed.
Appellee's affidavits disclose that appellee is a designer, manufacturer, and overhauler of aircraft with main plant and offices in Canada; that it maintains a single employee in the District of Columbia, who serves as a liaison or contact man with the United States Government and particularly with the armed forces; that this employee's principal duties are to transmit to appellee information about the United States Government's requirements and to keep in contact with Government agencies; that he does not solicit orders from anyone in the District other than the Government; and that he is without authority to accept orders from any source, governmental or otherwise, or to execute contracts on behalf of appellee. All contracts are entered into at appellee's offices in Canada, and deliveries of aircraft are made in that country. The present suit has no connection with the District of Columbia or appellee's activities here, such as they are. We conclude that under these circumstances the attempted service of process was properly quashed. See Mueller Brass Co. v. Alexander Milburn Co., 80 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 152 F.2d 142 (1945); cf. Frene v. Louisville Cement Co., 77 U.S. App.D.C. 129, 134 F.2d 511, 146 A.L.R. 926 (1943).
Our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sami v. U.S.
...v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287-88 (9th Cir. 1977). See also Traher v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., 111 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 294 F.2d 229 (D.C.Cir. 1961) (per curiam) (construing "doing business" within the meaning of the D.C. statute); Mueller Brass Co. v.......
-
Akhmetshin v. Browder, 19-7129
...analysis because they did not constitute "doing business" under the long-arm statute); Traher v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., 294 F.2d 229, 230 (D.C. Cir. 1961) (per curiam) (concluding that service was properly quashed when the only contact with the District was the maintenance o......
-
Akhmetshin v. Browder
...analysis because they did not constitute "doing business" under the long-arm statute);Traher v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., 294 F.2d 229, 230 (D.C. Cir. 1961) (per curiam) (concluding that service was properly quashed when the only contact with the District was the maintenance of......
-
Akhmetshin v. Browder
...analysis because they did not constitute "doing business" under the long-arm statute); Traher v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd. , 294 F.2d 229, 230 (D.C. Cir. 1961) (per curiam) (concluding that service was properly quashed when the only contact with the District was the maintenance ......