the C & O says that its business here, if any, amounts to a mere solicitation only.
An early decision, Green v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 205 U.S. 530, 27 S. Ct. 595, 51 L. Ed. 916 (1907), is authority for the proposition that generally speaking an interstate railroad does not do business within a foreign state by the solicitation only of either passenger or freight business. The Court said at page 533, 27 S. Ct. at page 596:
'The business shown in this case was in substance nothing more than that of solicitation.'
It is believed that two later cases, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945), and Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S. Ct. 413, 96 L. Ed. 485 (1952) point the way to the correct decision on the instant motion. International holds that when the subject matter of the suit arises within the forum state then but minimal contacts are required in order to find 'doing business'. It is observed that the facts in the International case were under the minimal contact doctrine put because the operative facts occurred in the State of Washington, the foreign corporation was suable in Washington and such a suit was in compliance with the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In the Perkins case the factual situation simply was that the business of the corporation was being carried on in the State of Ohio through the corporation president who maintained an office in that State, and in that situation the place where the cause of action arose was unimportant to the decision as the corporation was actually doing business within the meaning of the venue statute.
It is to be stressed that in Perkins the Supreme Court said at page 445, 72 S. Ct. at page 418:
'The amount and kind of activities which must be carried on by the foreign corporation in the state of the forum so as to make it reasonable and just to subject the corporation to the jurisdiction of that state are to be determined in each case.'
The Supreme Court not having departed from its ruling in Green v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., in the International and Perkins cases, there must be something more than mere solicitation for a company to be 'doing business' in this forum where the cause of action arose outside of the state. Judge Grim's decision in Moore v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 98 F.Supp. 375 (E.D.Pa., 1951), recognizes the validity of the Green case and the 'Solicitation Plus' doctrine. A comparison of Judge Grim's decision with the instant case clearly shows additional activities that satisfies the 'solicitation plus' doctrine and persuaded him to find the Atlantic Coast Line doing business in the Eastern District of this State. Chief among those additional activities were the solicitation of passenger traffic, the receiving of monies for the purchase of passenger tickets and the processing of passenger complaints. Also, Judge Grim stressed the fact that the Atlantic Coast Line dining and tavern cars operating on trains passing through Pennsylvania were leased to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company while on its lines but the car waiters and stewards on such cars were paid by the defendant and the defendant purchased all provisions for such cars and retained all receipts for meals and beverages served.
It is apparent that the C & O carries on in this judicial district a continuous and effective program of solicitation. As a result it secures some thousands of freight car loads worth of business for the railroad each year. But it is also my view that solicitation is nevertheless still only solicitation even though it is made effective by nine employees, office space, telephones, automobiles and business records. None of the decisions say that solicitation must be minimal. Compare also, Murray v. Great Northern Railway Co., 67 F.Supp. 944 (E.D.Pa., 1946) and Fiorella v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 89 F.Supp. 850 (E.D.Pa., 1950).
The complaint against the C & O will be dismissed for lack of venue. The other reasons advanced in the motion are not reached.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.