Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

NELSON v. DOLL FURNITURE CO.

July 28, 1969

William F. NELSON, a minor, by Elizabeth L. Nelson, his mother and natural guardian and Elizabeth L. Nelson, in her own right
v.
DOLL FURNITURE COMPANY, A. E. Shutt, indiv. and t/a Doll Furniture Company, David Shutt, indiv. and t/a Doll Furniture Company, Fumilator Sales Company and Phillips and Martin Company. Albertus W. VAN DER MEER v. DOLL FURNITURE COMPANY, A. E. Shutt, indiv. and t/a Doll Furniture Company, David Shutt, indiv. and t/a Doll Furniture Company, Fumilator Sales Company and Phillips and Martin Company



The opinion of the court was delivered by: HANNUM

 The issue upon which disposition of these motions lies is whether the defendant, Phillips and Martin Company, was "doing business" in Pennsylvania within the meaning of the applicable statute.

 Phillips and Martin Company, (hereinafter defendant), has moved for summary judgment in both of these cases, or in the alternative, to quash service of process.

 These are suits for personal injury arising out of an explosion which occurred on or about July 31, 1967 at Yardley, Pennsylvania. William Nelson died following the accident and Albertus Van Der Meer was burned.

 Defendant manufactured a stripping fluid for use in a furniture refinishing machine manufactured and sold by other defendants. The fluid was allegedly used in the machine involved in the explosion. Doll Furniture ordered this fluid according to its own formula, and it was sold to Doll and paid for directly by Doll. At the request of Doll, an Illinois Corporation, defendant made one shipment to Albertus Van Dermeer, at Yardley, Pennsylvania. The gross value of this shipment was $79.98. There is nothing in the record to indicate that there were any prior or subsequent shipments or acts of any kind carried out in this jurisdiction by defendant. *fn1"

 The dispute does not presently concern the method of service which was in accordance with Rule 4(d)(3). There must exist facts which provide an adequate basis for the assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident.

 State and not Federal standards determine the amenability of a foreign corporation to service of process. Arrowsmith v. United Press International, 320 F.2d 219, 6 A.L.R.3d 1072 (2nd Cir. 1963); Rachelson v. E. I. duPont deNemours & Co., 257 F. Supp. 257 (E.D.Pa.1966). This power is limited by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 The Pennsylvania law in effect at the time of service of process on defendant in 1967 read:

 
15 P.S. § 2011(C)
 
"For the purposes of determining jurisdictions of courts within this Commonwealth, the entry of any corporation into this Commonwealth for the doing of a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit or otherwise accomplishing an object, or doing a single act in this Commonwealth for such purpose, with the intention of thereby initiating a series of such acts, shall constitute 'doing business.'"

 By act of Legislature of July 20, 1968 that statute was amended to read:

 
"the doing by any corporation in this Commonwealth of a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit or otherwise accomplishing an object, or doing a single act in this Commonwealth for such purpose, with the intention of thereby initiating a series of such acts, shall constitute 'doing business.' For the purposes of this subsection the shipping of merchandise directly or indirectly into or through this Commonwealth shall be considered the doing of such an act in this Commonwealth."

 The validity of service of process is determined under Pennsylvania statute as it existed at the time of service, and not under the amended statute. Flaherty v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., 191 F. Supp. 661, 662, 663 (E.D.Pa.1961); Myers v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc., 429 Pa. 177, 184, 240 A.2d 505 (1967).

 The record indicates that defendant is an Illinois corporation engaged in the sale and distribution of chemicals. Defendant is not, and never was, registered to do business in Pennsylvania. It has never had any office, plant, business location, property, bank account, mailing address, telephone listing or other business facility in Pennsylvania. It has no affiliate or subsidiary which has ever engaged in business in Pennsylvania. It has never paid, or been called upon to pay any Pennsylvania Tax. It has no sales representatives in Pennsylvania, nor ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.