White-Rodgers Co. v. District Court of Weld County
| Decision Date | 26 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 22325,WHITE-RODGERS,22325 |
| Citation | 160 Colo. 491,418 P.2d 527 |
| Parties | CO., Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF WELD COUNTY, Colorado, Honorable Donald A. Carpenter, Judge of said Court, the Rectors, Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Parish ofGreeley, Colorado, and Chas. V. Young, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Wood, Ris & Hames, Thomas T. Crumpacker, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
White & Steele, John E. Clough, Denver, for defendant in error.
This is an original proceeding in which petitioner, White-Rodgers Co., seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition directed to the District Court of Weld County and the respondent judge thereof to prevent them from proceeding in an action pending in that court.
White-Rodgers Co. was named as one of several defendants in an action brought in the District Court by the Respondents, The Rectors, Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church of Greeley, Colorado, and Charles V. Young. The suit seeks damages for negligence and breach of warranty in the manufacture of a defective diaphragm gas valve which allegedly caused an explosion and fire at the Trinity Church in Greeley on March 1, 1963.
Petitioner, White-Rodgers Co., will be referred to by name. The various respondents will be referred to as respondents.
In the district court, White-Rodgers Co. filed a Motion to Quash Return of Service of Process on the ground that the White-Rodgers Co. was not transacting business in the State of Colorado. The district court denied the motion, and thereupon the petition was filed in this action. We issued a Rule to Show Cause. Respondents have answered the Rule and have placed before us the pleadings and affidavits upon which the trial court based its conclusion that White-Rodgers was in fact 'doing business' in Colorado.
White-Rodgers Co. filed an affidavit in support of its Motion to Quash Return of Service from which the following facts appear:
White-Rodgers Co. is a Missouri corporation not licensed to do business in Colorado. At the request of Crane Company, a New York corporation, White- Rodgers Co. manufactured the diaphragm gas valve in question and Crane Company incorporated the valve into a boiler manufactured in New York. Apparently the boiler then was put into the normal stream of commerce and ultimately found its way to Trinity Church in Greeley, Colorado. The valve allegedly caused the explosion and fire in Trinity Church.
White-Rodgers Co. maintains one employee in Colorado, Paul T. Williams. His activities cover a ten state area including Colorado. He resides in Colorado and spends part of his working time in Colorado. His duties involve sales of merchandise to independent distributors and wholesalers in his territory. Orders are sent to the home office in St. Louis for approval and evidently shipment is then made directly to the buyer. After delivery, Williams also performs 'trouble shooting' activities when customer problems arise. He maintains a desk and filing cabinet in his home for the company, and White-Rodgers Co. is listed in the Denver Telephone Directory at Paul Williams' home address and home telephone number.
The briefs in this proceeding are devoted in large part to lengthy discussions of Colorado's so-called 'long-arm' statute. Colo. Sess. Laws 1965, Ch. 119. White-Rodgers Co. contends that the cause of action 'did not arise out of their doing business in the state of Colorado and required by that statute.' Respondents rely on the same statute to sustain the service. We think it is not necessary to rely on the said statute to sustain the jurisdiction of the court under the facts presented here. Service of process in the district court was not made outside of Colorado, but was made upon Paul T. Williams at his home in Westminster, Colorado. Chapter 119, Sec. 2, sub-section 3, expressly states that:
'Nothing contained in section 2 of this act shall limit or affect the right to serve any process as prescribed by the Colorado rules of civil procedure.'
It is evident that this Act was passed by the Legislature in order to Extend rather than to Limit the jurisdiction of the courts of the state.
Under Rule 4(e), R.C.P. Colo., service is proper upon the agent of a foreign corporation if made within the state. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co. v. District Court, etc., 138 Colo. 270, 332 P.2d 208.
The trial court made a finding of fact that under the circumstances outlined in the affidavit White-Rodgers Co. was doing business in Colorado. White-Rodgers Co. in its brief states:
* * *'
Thereafter, however, it is stated in the brief:
'The limited sales activities of White-Rodgers in the ten state western area do not constitute transacting business sufficient to submit it to jurisdiction in Colorado. * * *'
It becomes our duty, therefore, to determine whether the finding of the trial court that it had jurisdiction over White-Rodgers is sustainable under the facts presented by the affidavit; and, if those facts support the finding of the trial court, we will not disturb it. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co. v. District Court, supra.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly broadened the permissible area for the exercise of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations. After reviewing the extensive history of such suits, that Court stated:
Subsequent cases have held that transactions carried on in a state wholly by mail may be sufficient to constitute a doing of business within the state sufficient to enable the state to exercise In personam jurisdiction over the corporation. McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223; Union Mut. Life Co. v. District Court, etc., 97 Colo. 108, 47 P.2d 401; Stephenson v. Duriron Co., 401 P.2d 423 (Alaska, 1965.)
While it is clear that casual or intermittent presence of the corporation's agent within the state is not enough to support In personam jurisdiction based upon service...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek
...U.S. 293, 81 S.Ct. 555, 5 L.Ed.2d 571; and Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed.2d 1188; White-Rodgers Co. v. Dist. Court, 160 Colo. 491, 418 P.2d 527.2 See Heidemann v. Rohl, S.D., 194 N.W.2d 164 (1972); Winters v. Maxey, Tenn., 481 S.W.2d 755 (1972); Abendschein v. ......
-
Waterval v. District Court In and For El Paso County
...E. g., McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); White-Rodgers Co. v. District Court, 160 Colo. 491, 418 P.2d 527 (1966). Where a single act or a minimum contact is the basis of jurisdiction, we have utilized a three-pronged test in determi......
-
Litvak Meat Company v. Baker
...Colorado's liberal jurisdictional tests, Vandermee v. District Court, 164 Colo. 117, 433 P.2d 335 (1967); White-Rodgers v. District Court, 160 Colo. 491, 418 P.2d 527 (1966), and the landmark due process decisions of the Supreme Court, properly regarded also as expressions of federal amenab......
-
Jenkins v. Glen and Helen Aircraft, Inc., 77-1009
...discussion, in at least three other cases. Vandermee v. District Court, 164 Colo. 117, 433 P.2d 335 (1967); White-Rodgers Co. v. District Court, 160 Colo. 491, 418 P.2d 527 (1966); Cox v. District Court, 160 Colo. 437, 417 P.2d 792 Furthermore, in all of the cases cited by the majority in s......