Appeal, No. 202, March T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1961, No. 3951, in case of Ackle Namie and Lillian Namie, his wife, v. Henry T. Digirolamo and Belgrade Shoe Co. Order reversed.
Herbert Grigsby, with him William J. Lancaster, for appellant.
William S. Schweers, with him Mcardle, Harrington and Mclaughlin, for appellee.
Before Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
Belgrade Shoe Company, a non-registered foreign corporation, appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissing its preliminary objections which raised the question of jurisdiction over the person. Service of process was made upon the Secretary of the Commonwealth pursuant to the Act of May 5, 1933, P.L. 364, § 1011, as amended, 15 P.S. § 2852-1011 (Supp. 1962).*fn1
The "acts or omissions" of Belgrade are alleged to have arisen out of an automobile collision between Lillian Namie and Henry T. Cigirolamo on May 27, 1960, at the intersection of Sixth Avenue and Grant Street, Pittsburgh. The complaint in the trespass action which followed alleged that Digirolamo was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Belgrade and upon the business of that corporation at the time of the collision. (The complaint, of course, alleged acts of negligence on the part of principal and agent.)
At the request of the court below, Belgrade submitted an affidavit of its president to support its preliminary objections. The affidavit alleges the following material facts:
Belgrade is a Maine corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes; it has no employees or agents within Pennsylvania. From 1950 to July 29, 1960, Henry T. Digirolamo was a manufacturer's representative for Belgrade Shoes in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Western New York, and parts of Ohio and Maryland. Mr. Digirolamo resided in Pittsburgh and was advertised in the classified telephone directory there as "Belgrade Shoe Co. Moxees Division, Representative-Henry T. Digirolamo."
The affidavit further avers that no written contract existed between Belgrade and Digirolamo and that he was free to represent other manufacturers. He was supplied with a list of Belgrade's accounts and with samples of its shoes, but was not ...