Campbell v. Corporation

6 Citing cases

  1. W.H. Elliott Sons Co. v. Nuodex Products Co.

    243 F.2d 116 (1st Cir. 1957)   Cited 27 times

    In my opinion the New Hampshire statute, unlike that of Massachusetts, has not been limited by judicial decision to restrict the scope of state power short of federal constitutional bounds. Campbell v. United States Radiator Corp., 1933, 86 N.H. 310, 167 A. 558, and Grace v. Procter Gamble Co., 1948, 95 N.H. 74, 57 A.2d 619, certainly indicate unmistakably that in New Hampshire foreign corporations are subject to local jurisdiction up to the limits imposed upon state action by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps some rather ambiguous language used in deciding the later cases of Taylor v. Klenzade Products, Inc., 1952, 97 N.H. 517, 92 A.2d 910, and LaBonte v. American Mercury Magazine, Inc., 1953, 98 N.H. 163, 96 A.2d 200, 38 A.L.R.2d 742, can be interpreted as casting some doubt upon the holding of the earlier Campbell and Grace cases.

  2. W.H. Elliott Sons Co. v. E. F. King Co.

    144 F. Supp. 401 (D.N.H. 1956)   Cited 6 times

    A possible reason for the parties to the action urging an opposite view upon this court is found in the language of Grace v. Procter Gamble Company, 95 N.H. 74, 57 A.2d 619, 621. There, the court quotes an earlier New Hampshire decision [Campbell v. United States Radiator Corp., 86 N.H. 310, 167 A. 558] to the effect that the "`question is one of federal law'", and goes on to say that it considers "federal decisions as controlling rather than convincing." Id., 95 N.H. 76, 57 A.2d 621.

  3. Roy v. North American Newspaper Alliance

    106 N.H. 92 (N.H. 1964)   Cited 27 times
    Noting that plaintiff was not "forum shopping" by seeking redress in community and state where he lived and worked

    Under the paralyzing effect of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, and its successors this court faithfully but unhappily followed the federal decisions as to what constituted doing business by a foreign corporation. Thus in Campbell v. Corporation, 86 N.H. 310, 311 (1933), it was noted that the "presence" of a foreign corporation "is as indubitably shown by a single act as by many transactions. But we have no concern with the adequacy or correctness of the reasons given for a rule of federal constitutional law.

  4. LaBonte v. Company

    98 N.H. 163 (N.H. 1953)   Cited 13 times
    In LaBonte v. Company, 98 N.H. 163 (1953) a foreign publishing corporation was held amenable to service under this statute in a libel action where the printing and distribution of its magazine by a domestic corporation was done on its behalf in this state.

    See Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437. The defendant relies in part on the reasoning in Campbell v. Corporation, 86 N.H. 310, and Bank of America v. Whitney Bank, 261 U.S. 171, for the proposition that Mercury was not doing business in this state. These cases may have been authority for that proposition twenty or thirty years ago but later decisions make the issue more debatable.

  5. Grace v. Company

    57 A.2d 619 (N.H. 1948)   Cited 10 times

    R.L., c. 280, s. 8. "The question is one of federal law." See Campbell v. Corporation, 86 N.H. 310, 311, where this court regarded the federal decisions as controlling rather than convincing. Since the Campbell case, however, the legal fiction of corporate "presence" has been discarded as the test for determining jurisdiction over foreign corporations.

  6. Dahl v. Collette

    279 N.W. 561 (Minn. 1938)   Cited 25 times

    The case falling within a decision of that tribunal, the judgment of the state court must conform to the precedent established. It is not the function of the latter body "to review the adequacy of the supporting logic" upon which the precedent is based. Campbell v. U.S. Radiator Corp. 86 N.H. 310, 167 A. 558, 559. Nor has it the power to create an aberrant rule. Riverside and D. R. C. Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189, 35 S.Ct. 579, 59 L. ed. 910.