Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendantjurisdictioncorporation
defendantjurisdictionhearingmotioncorporation

Related Cases

Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883 F.2d 1553
View Case »
Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Inc., 519 F.2d 974, 20 Fed.R.Serv.2d 340, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,080
View Case »
Intercontinental Hotels Corp. (Puerto Rico) v. Golden, 15 N.Y.2d 9, 203 N.E.2d 210, 254 N.Y.S.2d 527
View Case »
Ruiz v. Blentech Corp., 89 F.3d 320, 35 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1053, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,668
View Case »
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372

Facts

Rosenberg Bros. & Co., Inc., a New York corporation, initiated a lawsuit against Curtis Brown Company, an Oklahoma corporation, in New York. The only service of process was delivered to the defendant's president while he was temporarily in New York. The defendant argued that it was not doing business in New York and moved to quash the summons, which led to the case being removed to federal court. The federal court found that Curtis Brown Company did not have sufficient presence in New York to be subject to the state's jurisdiction.

Rosenberg Bros. & Co., 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.

Issue

Whether Curtis Brown Company was doing business within the state of New York at the time of the service of process, such that it could be considered present there.

The sole 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.

Rule

A corporation must be doing business in a state to be subject to the jurisdiction of that state's courts, which requires a sufficient level of activity to warrant the inference of presence.

A corporation must be doing business in a state to be subject to the jurisdiction of that state's courts, which requires a sufficient level of activity to warrant the inference of presence.

Analysis

The court analyzed the activities of Curtis Brown Company in New York and determined that the company did not have an established place of business or any significant operations in the state. The only connection was the occasional purchase of merchandise, which did not constitute doing business. The court concluded that the visits by the president for purchasing goods did not establish jurisdiction.

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, Okl. It never applied, under the foreign corporation laws, for a license 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.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decision to quash the summons, concluding that Curtis Brown Company was not subject to the jurisdiction of New York courts.

Affirmed.

Who won?

Curtis Brown Company prevailed because the court found that it was not doing business in New York and therefore not subject to the state's jurisdiction.

Curtis Brown Company prevailed because the court found that it was not doing business in New York and therefore not subject to the state's jurisdiction.

You must be