271 F. Supp. 516 (N. D. Ohio 1967). The Velandra decision was authored by District Judge Wilson, and he states in footnote 2 at page 294 of 336 F.2d that no citation to the Michigan statute had been made, but that the standard was set forth in Jennings, supra, and that there the Michigan Supreme Court confirmed its adherence to International Shoe. Although the Michigan high court did state that "the application or inapplication to the facts" of this doctrine governed the question of personal jurisdiction 119 N.W.2d at 599, they also stated that this was "echoed" in their own cases at Nat'l Concession, Inc., v. Nat'l Circus, Corporations, 347 Mich. 335, 79 N.W.2d 910 (1956) and Campbell Construction Co. v. Palombit, 347 Mich. 340, 79 N.W.2d (1956). A reading of these two earlier Michigan decisions discloses that the test then was whether the defendant was "doing business" in the state, and that standard is at most only as broad as the first subsection of the Ohio long-arm statute.
However, in the two cases considered by the Michigan Supreme Court which mention the International Shoe Co. case, the court has not gone so far as to hold that mere solicitation of business is sufficient to subject a foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of the Michigan courts of general jurisdiction. Hershel Radio Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1952, 334 Mich. 148, 54 N.W.2d 286; H. F. Campbell Const. Co. v. Palombit, 1956, 347 Mich. 340, 79 N.W.2d 915. In the latter case, the court emphasized that the intra-state sales agent took, accepted, and filled orders for the foreign corporation, and therefore held that corporation amenable to service of process.
The statute here was based on those circumstances, especially existing in products liability, where privity between consumer and manufacturer are lacking. There may come a point, however, when the intervention of so many parties may make the imposition of authority over the defendant unfair. On the other hand, the travel through distributors by the producer may be an unimportant factor if there is a strong relationship between the entities, Campbell Construction Co. v. Palombit (1956), 347 Mich. 340, 79 N.W.2d 915, or if, as Smith has done, the producer relies solely on a single network of independent distributors to reach the actual consumer. See: Keckler, supra.
"The WSM Corporation is a corporation never qualified to do business in Michigan; never conducted any type of business or business activity in Michigan; never had any office, agency, employees, agents or representatives in any capacity within the State of Michigan; has never made or performed any contract within the State of Michigan and further that Johnny Cash, Phil Simon, Roy Acuff, Don Gibson and Roger Miller, upon whom service was purportedly served, [as alleged agents of WSM, Inc.] were never — never have been an officer, agent or employee or other representative of WSM." The presented question turns, of course, upon application or inapplication to the facts of familiar doctrine written in International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 ( 66 S Ct 154, 90 L ed 95, 161 ALR 1057), echoed in our own cases of National Concessions, Inc., v. National Circus Corporations, 347 Mich. 335, and H.F. Campbell Construction Co. v. Palombit, 347 Mich. 340, 343. For possible extension of International Shoe's scope (in Michigan), see chapter 7 of RJA, "Bases of Jurisdiction," CL 1948, § 600.701 et seq. (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.701), and GCR 1963, 105.4 and 105.9.
" (Citing authorities.) Also, see Jennings v. W.S.M., Inc. (1963), 369 Mich. 210; National Concessions, Inc., v. National Circus Corporations (1956), 347 Mich. 335; H.F. Campbell Construction Co. v. Palombit (1956), 347 Mich. 340. Jurisdiction over foreign corporations was expressed in statutory form by the Michigan legislature in the revised judicature act: