Appeal, No. 259, March T., 1962, from orders of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1961B, No. 402, in case of Francis Kilian v. Allegheny County Distributors, Inc. and Harley-Davidson Motor Company. Order affirmed.
Norman J. Cowie, with him Pringle, Bredin & Martin, for appellant.
William C. O'Toole and James F. Manley, with them McArdle, Harrington & McLaughlin, and burns & Manley, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Keim, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN
This is an action of trespass instituted in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, for personal injuries suffered
by the plaintiff on August 6, 1959, while riding an allegedly defective motorcycle manufactured by one of the defendants, Harley-Davidson Motor Company,*fn1 and sold and delivered to the plaintiff by the other defendant, Allegheny County Distributors, Inc. Service of process was effected upon the defendant, Harley-Davidson, an unregistered foreign corporation by substituted service upon the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, under the provisions of the Act of May 5, 1933, P.L. 364, § 1101B, as added to by the Act of September 26, 1951, P.L. 1475, § 22, as amended, 15 P.S. § 2852-1101B.
Harley-Davidson duly filed a preliminary objection to the complaint attacking the service thereof on the sole ground, that on the date of the acts complained of, said defendant was not "doing business" in Pennsylvania. This objection was overruled by the court below on August 29, 1961.
On September 7, 1961, Harley-Davidson petitioned the court to stay its order of August 29, 1961, asserting that its acts complained of herein occurred outside of Pennsylvania and, that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had recently decided (July 17, 1961) in Rufo v. Bastian-Blessing Co., 405 Pa. 12, 173 A.2d 123 (1961), that if an unregistered foreign corporation is actually doing business in Pennsylvania, the courts of the Commonwealth may still not assert jurisdiction over the person of said corporation, if the acts complained of occurred outside of the Commonwealth. It requested the right to reargument on the basis of the decision in Rufo.*fn2 On the same day, the court entered an order
staying the proceedings pending the disposition of the ...