, Rosenberg Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Curtis Brown Co. :: 260 U.S. 516 (1923) :: US LAW US Supreme Court Center

Rosenberg Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Curtis Brown Co. :: 260 U.S. 516 (1923) :: US LAW US Supreme Court Center

    U.S. Supreme Court

    Rosenberg Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516 (1923)

    Rosenberg Bros. & Company, Inc. v. Curtis Brown Company

    No. 102

    Argued November sixteen, 1922

    Decided January 2, 1923

    260 U.S. 516

    Syllabus

    1. An order of the district courtroom quashing the summons in an action in opposition to a overseas employer upon the ground that the defendant became not found in the state is in impact a very last judgment, reviewable here below Jud.Code, § 238. P. 517.

    2. Purchases of goods by a foreign agency for sale at its home, and visits by way of its officers on business associated with such purchases, are not enough to warrant the inference that it's far gift within the jurisdiction of the state wherein such purchases and visits are made, and provider of summons on its president while quickly in that country on such commercial enterprise is consequently void. P. 260 U. S. 517.

    3. The reality that the purpose of action arose within the country will no longer confer jurisdiction of a overseas agency now not discovered there. P. 260 U. S. 518.

    285 F. 879 affirmed,

    Error to a judgment of the district court quashing the summons, for need of jurisdiction, in an movement in opposition to a foreign corporation.

    Page 260 U. S. 517

    U.S. Supreme Court

    Rosenberg Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516 (1923)

    Rosenberg Bros. & Company, Inc. v. Curtis Brown Company

    No. 102

    Argued November 16, 1922

    Decided January 2, 1923

    260 U.S. 516

    ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    Syllabus

    1. An order of the district court docket quashing the summons in an motion against a foreign organisation upon the floor that the defendant turned into not found within the state is in effect a very last judgment, reviewable here under Jud.Code, § 238. P. 517.

    2. Purchases of goods with the aid of a overseas agency on the market at its abode, and visits by way of its officials on enterprise related to such purchases, are not sufficient to warrant the inference that it's far present in the jurisdiction of the nation where such purchases and visits are made, and provider of summons on its president whilst briefly in that country on such business is therefore void. P. 260 U. S. 517.

    three. The reality that the cause of movement arose in the nation will now not confer jurisdiction of a foreign agency not discovered there. P. 260 U. S. 518.

    285 F. 879 affirmed,

    Error to a judgment of the district court quashing the summons, for want of jurisdiction, in an motion in opposition to a foreign employer.

    Page 260 U. S. 517

    MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS added the opinion of the Court.

    Rosenberg Bros. & Co., Inc., a New York enterprise, delivered this healthy inside the perfect courtroom of that nation against Curtis Brown Company, an Oklahoma organization. The only carrier of manner made became by using delivery of a summons to defendant s president while he became quickly in New York. Defendant seemed specially; moved to quash the summons at the floor that the agency become not located inside the kingdom, and, after proof changed into taken however before listening to at the motion, removed the case to the federal court for the Western District of New York. There, the motion to quash turned into granted upon the floor that the defendant was not amenable to the technique of the state court docket on the time of the carrier of the summons. A writ of blunders changed into sued out under § 238 of the Judicial Code, and the query of jurisdiction become duly certified. The order entered under, although in shape an order to quash the summons, and not a dismissal of the match, is a very last judgment, and the case is well here. Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518; Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, a hundred ninety U. S. 406. Compare The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216, 255 U. S. 217.

    The sole question for choice is whether, on the time of the carrier of process, defendant became doing commercial enterprise inside the state of New York in such way and to such volume as to warrant the inference that it was present there. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 243 U. S. 265. The district courtroom found that it changed into now not. That decision changed into simply accurate. The Curtis Brown

    Page 260 U. S. 518

    Company is a small retail supplier in guys s clothing and fixtures at Tulsa, Oklahoma. It by no means carried out underneath the overseas company laws for a license to do commercial enterprise in New York; nor did it at any time authorize healthy to be introduced in opposition to it there. It by no means had an established place of work in New York, nor did it, without having such hooked up area, regularly keep on enterprise there. It had no property in New York, and had no officer, agent, or stockholder resident there. Its best connection with New York seems to have been the acquisition there sometimes of a big a part of the products to be sold at its keep in Tulsa. The purchases have been made, now and again by way of correspondence, occasionally through visits to New York of one in every of its officers. Whether, at the time its president become served with technique, he was in New York on business or for delight, whether or not he become then authorized to transact any enterprise there, and to what extent he did transact business while there are questions on which an awful lot proof turned into introduced, and some of it's far conflicting.

    But the problems so raised aren't of criminal significance. The only business imagined to have been transacted through the agency in New York, either then or theretofore, related to such purchases of goods by officers of a foreign organization. Visits on such business, despite the fact that occurring at ordinary intervals, might no longer warrant the inference that the organisation was gift inside the jurisdiction of the state. Compare International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579; People s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79. And as it was not located there, the fact that the alleged purpose of motion arose in New York is immaterial. Compare Chipman, Limited v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co., 251 U. S. 373, 251 U. S. 379.

    Affirmed.

    Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case regulation is only observed in the print version of america Reports. USLaw.Site case law is supplied for widespread informational purposes only, and might not mirror contemporary prison trends, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the data contained on this web page or statistics linked to from this website online. Please check official sources.

    USLaw.Site Annotations is a discussion board for legal professionals to summarize, touch upon, and examine case regulation posted on our website. USLaw.Site makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are correct or replicate the modern state of law, and no annotation is supposed to be, nor must it be construed as, prison recommendation. Contacting USLaw.Site or any lawyer thru this web page, through web form, email, or in any other case, does no longer create an attorney-client relationship.