Appeal, No. 13, May T., 1964, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, No. 2538, Equity Docket, in case of Irvin Yoffee and Myron H. Beitman, trading as Yoffee and Beitman, Yoffee and Beitman Special Risks Division, Inc., Yoffee and Beitman Management Corp., Western Division et al. v. Stanford F. Golin, Plymouth Utual Life Insurance Company and Student Accident Plans, Inc. Order reversed.
Jerome H. Gerber, for appellant.
Arthur Berman, with him Compton, Handler, Berman & Boswell, for appellees.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN
In this action in equity, the defendant, Student Accident Plans, Inc. (Plans), appeals from an order in the court below dismissing its preliminary objections raising the question of jurisdiction over the person. Service of process was made on appellant, a non-registered foreign corporation, through the Secretary of the Commonwealth in accordance with the provisions of the Act of May 5, 1933, P.L. 364, § 1011, as amended, 15 P.S. § 2852-1011 (Supp. 1962).
The prime question for decision is whether or not the corporate-appellant engaged in any act or series of acts within the Commonwealth, which constituted "doing business" as defined in the aforesaid statute, which would render it amenable to service of process thereunder.
The plaintiffs complain in this action that the defendant Golin, a former employee, violated a restrictive covenant in his employment contract by misappropriating
certain trade secrets and making them available to the defendant-appellant.
Plans is a Maryland corporation engaged in the business of selling student accident insurance through a business office located in the City of Baltimore. It is the position of the plaintiffs, that Golin was authorized to and did solicit insurance business on behalf of Plans from his personal office in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, and that his efforts in this respect were the acts of the appellant and constituted a "doing business" in Pennsylvania as defined by the Act of 1933, supra.
A preliminary injunction was requested below and at the time of the hearing thereon, Golin was interrogated as if on cross-examination. Depositions of John Pepe, president of appellant-corporation, were also made part of the record. From this testimony, we must decide if Plans did ...