ROSENBERG BROS. & COMPANY, INC.
v.
CURTIS BROWN COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A New York court served process on an Oklahoma clothing retailer by delivering a summons to its president while he was temporarily in the state, but the Court held that the corporation was not subject to the state's jurisdiction because it lacked sufficient presence there—merely purchasing merchandise in New York through occasional officer visits did not constitute doing business within the state sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The decision affirmed that personal service on a corporate officer temporarily in a state does not confer jurisdiction over a foreign corporation unless that corporation is actually doing business within the state.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the Court.
Rosenberg Bros. & Company, Inc., a New York corporation, brought this suit in the Supreme Court of that State against Curtis Brown Company, an Oklahoma corporation. The only service of process made was by delivery of a summons to defendant’s president while he was temporarily in New York. Defendant appeared specially; moved to quash the summons on the ground that the corporation was not found within the State; and, after evidence was taken but before hearing on the motion, removed the case to the federal court for the Western District of New York. Theré, the motion to quash was granted, upon the ground .hat the defendant was not amenable to the process of the state court at the time of. the service of the summons. A writ of error was sued out under § 238 of the Judicial Code; and the question of jurisdiction was duly certified. The order entered below,. although in form an order to quash the summons and not a dismissal of the suit, is a final judgment; and the case is. properly here. Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518; Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U. S. 406. Compare The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216, 217.
The solé question for decision is whether, at the time of the service of process, defendant was doing business within the State of New York in such manner and to such extent as to warrant the inference that it was present there. Philadelphia & Redding Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 265. The District Court found that it was not. That decision was clearly correct. The Curtis Brown Company is a small retail dealer in men’s clothing.and furnishings at Tulsa, Oklahoma. It never applied, under the foreign corporation laws, for a licénse to do business in New York; nor did it at any time authorize suit to be brought against it there. It never had an established place of business in New York; nor did it, without having such established place, regularly carry on business -there. It had no property in New York; and had no officer, agent or stockholder resident there. Its only connection with New York appears to have been the purchase there from .¡time to time of a large part of the merchandise to be sold at its store in Tulsa. The purchases were made, sometimes by correspondence, sometimes through visits to New York of one of its officers. Whether, at the time its president was served with process, he was in New York on business .or for pleasure; whether he was then authorized to.transact any business there; and to what extent he. did transact business while there, are questions on which much evidence was introduced; and some of it is conflicting. But the issues so raised are not of legal significance. The only business alleged to have been transacted by the company in New York, either then or theretofore, related to such purchases of goods by officers of a foreign corporation. Visits on such business, even if occurring at regular intervals, would not warrant the inference that the corporation was present within the jurisdiction of the State. Compare International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579; People’s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79. And as it was not found there, the fact that the alleged cause of action arose in New York is immaterial. Compare Chipman, Limited v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co., 251 U. S. 373, 379.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (81 total)
-
Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. v. The Queen's Flowers Corp., 696 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…jurisdiction statute. Thus, the sole question before us is whether Marsh’s mere purchases of goods within this state are likewise sufficient to comport with the constitutional due process requirements. In Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372 (1923), the United States Supreme Court indicated that it was not. In Rosenberg, the defendant was a small Oklahoma men’s clothing retailer which purchased a large portion of its merchandise from New York wholesalers. The…
-
Aluminator Trailers, L.L.C. v. Loadmaster Aluminum Boat Trailers, Inc., 832 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…da Statutes (2000), case law clearly establishes that the mere purchase of goods in Florida does not establish the minimum contacts necessary to satisfy due process under the United States Constitution. See Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 518, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372 (1923); Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. v. The Queen’s FS Corp., 696 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (discussing Rosenberg Bros., 260 U.S. 516, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372); O’Brien Glass Co. v. Miami Wall Sys., Inc., 6…1 / 3
-
Rorick v. Chancey, 142 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1938)…that State. We have no occasion to enquire into the local practice. The constitutional claim sustained in Davis v. Farmers Co-operative Co., 262 U. S. 312, was not that under the Fourteenth Amendment as in Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U. S. 516. It was assumed that the carrier had been found within the State. The judgment was reversed on the ground that to compel it to try the cause there would burden interstate commerce and, hence, would violate the commerce clause. No local rule of pract…
Previewing 3 of 81 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- People's Tobacco Co. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1918)
- Int'l Harvester Co. of Am. v. Commonwealth of Ky., 234 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1914)
- Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. McKIBBIN, 243 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1917)
- Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1895)
- The Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1921)
- Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U.S. 406 (U.S. 1903)
- Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co., 251 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1920)