Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAMS v. ROSE (ET AL. (05/22/61)

May 22, 1961

WILLIAMS
v.
ROSE (ET AL., APPELLANT).



Appeal, No. 71, March T., 1961, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1958, No. 747, in case of Cora Hubbard Williams, an incompetent, et al. v. Gretchen Pack Rose et al. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

William J. Kenney, with him Kenney, Stevens, Hill & Clark, for appellant.

D. Malcolm Anderson, with him Thomas N. Griggs, Donald C. Bush, and Griggs, Moreland, Blair & Douglass, for appellee.

Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok and Eagen, JJ.

Author: Bok

[ 403 Pa. Page 620]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BOK.

This is an appeal by the Dyson Corporation, defendant, from an order of the court below dismissing its preliminary objections to jurisdiction.

The merits of the case are not before us, but to give it a shape they concern the purchase of The Hubbard Company stock for $4,543,000 from two sisters, one now incompetent. The book value of this company's current assets, as alleged in the complaint, was about $8,500,000 and the market value of the stock "greatly in excess of $7,000,000". Fraud and deception are alleged. In addition to the complaint, answer, and interrogatories, extensive depositions were taken of the presidents of the two companies involved.

[ 403 Pa. Page 621]

The point now at issue spins down to whether or not the Dyson Corporation was doing business in the Commonwealth and whether it was amenable to service. The Corporation denies that it was legally active here, while the plaintiff, by her guardians, assert the opposite.

There were three attempts to serve the appellant, apparently to follow changes in the Business Corporation Law, Act of May 5, 1933, P.L. 364, as amended by the Act of September 26, 1951, P.L. 1475, § 22, 15 P.S. § 2852-1011 (B) & (C). The pertinent part of this Act, Section 1011(B), reads: "B. Any foreign business corporation which shall have done any business in this Commonwealth, without procuring a certificate of authority to do so from the Department of State, shall be conclusively presumed to have designated the Secretary of the Commonwealth as its true and lawful attorney authorized to accept, on its behalf, service of process in any action arising out of acts or omissions of such corporation within this Commonwealth. On petition, alleging conduct of business within the Commonwealth by any corporation not qualified by the Secretary of the Commonwealth or having otherwise designated him as agent for the service of process, the court of the county in which the action is instituted shall authorize service to be made upon the Secretary of the Commonwealth...."

Summons in equity issued on July 25, 1958, and on August 25th return was made of conventional service on the various defendants.

The doing of business required by Section 1011(B) was defined by the Act of 1951 by Section 1011(C) as follows: "C. For the purposes of this act [now section] the entry of any corporation into this Commonwealth for the doing of a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.