benefit, Greco v. Bucciconi Engineering Co., supra.
Of great weight in our mind is the evidence of successive entries of defendant corporation's personnel to exhibit its products at trade shows. The natural inference of this evidence is that a series of acts is contemplated for the purpose of producing pecuniary benefit to the corporation from sales of its products.
We also find another factor important here:
4. Defendant makes its sales in western Pennsylvania through an independent distributorship, Robinson-Waggoner. This company displays a stock of defendant's products, it distributes a catalogue of defendant's products under defendant's name, its sales representative carried business cards supplied by defendant identifying him as representing defendant's firm and no other, this firm agreed to handle no competing lines of products, and this firm's representative accompanies employees of defendants on visits to customers and prospective customers in the sales area. However, there appears to be a clearly contractual arrangement between distributor and defendant and orders taken by the distributor are subject to defendant's acceptance at its home office.
This evidence does not establish Robinson-Waggoner or its office in this District as an agent or a place where service of process upon defendant could be effected. Their relationship remains that of contractor-contractee, but the close relationship of this distributor to the defendant, while not controlling on the question of entry into this Commonwealth tends to support such a conclusion. This is a far closer relationship than that shown in Henderson v. New York Pressing Mach. Corp., supra, and resembles the situation in Frisch v. Alexson Equip. Corp., 423 Pa. 247, 224 A.2d 183 (1966), and Myers v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc., supra, where the close relationship with the distributor, although not controlling, was a factor to be considered in determining whether the corporation had entered the Commonwealth by carrying on a series of similar acts for pecuniary profit in Pennsylvania.
We find under the evidence presented that the jurisdictional requirement of the Pennsylvania statute has been met.
And now, July 17, 1969, Motion of Defendant Mackworth G. Rees, Inc. to Dismiss is denied.