Harvey's Sons Mfg. Co. v. Sterling Co.

11 Citing cases

  1. Mahanna v. Francornero

    222 F. Supp. 277 (E.D. Mich. 1963)   Cited 1 times

    Smartt, et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Corp. (C.A.6), 318 F.2d 447; Pulson v. American Rolling Mill Co. (C.A.1), 170 F.2d 193; Dolce v. Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe R. Co., supra. In a pertinent case, Harvey's Sons Mfg. Co. v. Sterling Materials Co., 247 Mich. 317, at p. 319, 225 N.W. 538, the Michigan Supreme Court stated: "In these cases under such decisions two questions ordinarily arise: First, was the process served upon an authorized agent of the corporation, which question has been answered, and, second, whether the corporation was doing business within the state.

  2. Berk v. Gordon Johnson Co.

    212 F. Supp. 365 (E.D. Mich. 1962)   Cited 4 times

    " The instant case is very similar to that of Harvey's Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Sterling Materials Co., 247 Mich. 317, 225 N.W. 538. In that case the defendant, a Canadian corporation which did not maintain either an office or warehouse or stock in Michigan, sold a quantity of roofing material to the plaintiff through a commissioned salesman subject to the confirmation of the defendant.

  3. Republic Supply Corporation v. Lewyt Corporation

    160 F. Supp. 949 (E.D. Mich. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    Determination of the question before the Court is not necessarily dependent upon the quantum of the foreign corporation's activities, or, necessarily, the quality of separate transactions; but in resolving this question, the Court should take into consideration both of these elements. It appears, therefore, to this Court that this defendant's activities in addition to mere solicitation of sales, were of such kind and of such extent and continuity as to justify the conclusion that the defendant corporation was present in Michigan so as to be amenable to the processes of its courts. Much less than is present in this case, led the Supreme Court of Michigan, in the case of A. Harvey's Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Sterling Materials Co., 247 Mich. 317, 225 N.W. 538, to conclude that a foreign corporation was doing business in Michigan so as to subject it to Michigan jurisdiction. In that case, the defendant, Sterling Company, had neither an office or warehouse, and kept no stock of goods in Michigan.

  4. American Car & Foundry Inv. Corp. v. Chandler-Groves Co.

    2 F.R.D. 85 (E.D. Mich. 1941)   Cited 3 times

              The service here complained of was valid and binding and within the above provisions of law pertaining to the service of foreign corporations.          See: A. Harvey's Sons Mfg. Co. v. Sterling Co., 247 Mich. 317, 225 N.W. 538; Malooly v. York Heating & Vent. Corporation, 270 Mich. 240, 258 N.W. 622; International Harvester Company v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579, 34 S.Ct. 944, 58 L.Ed. 1479; Jeffrey-Nichols Motor Co. v. Hupp Motor Car Corp., 1 Cir., 46 F.2d 623; Michigan Aluminum Foundry Company v. Aluminum Castings Company, C.C., 190 F. 879; Eastman Kodak Company of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Company, 273 U.S. 359, 47 S.Ct. 400, 71 L.Ed. 684.           Rule 13 of the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now governs the procedure of alleging counterclaims in civil actions.

  5. Zeidler v. Johnson

    77 N.W.2d 756 (Mich. 1956)   Cited 3 times

    Plaintiff contends that this constitutes doing business in Michigan sufficient to subject defendant to Michigan process. Plaintiff cites A. Harvey's Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Sterling Materials Co., 247 Mich. 317; Watson-Higgins Milling Co. v. St. Paul Milling Co., 256 Mich. 258; Dobson v. Maytag Sales Corp., 292 Mich. 107; Wills v. National Mineral Co., 176 Okla. 193 ( 55 P.2d 449). In the Harvey's Sons Case the defendant Canadian corporation sold goods to plaintiff in Michigan through an agent who worked on a commission basis taking orders for defendant; and upon plaintiff's complaint defendant had sent its representative to assist plaintiff in selling the goods to prospects.

  6. Hellman v. Ladd

    23 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. 1946)   Cited 9 times
    In Hellman, the court affirmed the trial court's order quashing service of process, where the trial court found that the defendant foreign corporation had not been doing business in the state for three years prior to April 10, 1945 (the apparent date of service).

    Watson-Higgins Milling Co. v. St. Paul Milling Co., 256 Mich. 258. The mere presence of an agent of a foreign corporation in this State is not alone sufficient to constitute corporate presence, unless the corporation is doing business here. Bachler v. Maytag Co., 251 Mich. 439. Jurisdiction is usually entertained when the cause of action against the corporation occurs within the State and when it appears that the corporation is carrying on a business therein at the time of service of process upon it. Malooly v. York Heating Ventilating Corp., 270 Mich. 241, 249. It is not required that a foreign corporation maintain an office, warehouse, or keep a stock of goods in this State, to constitute doing business herein. A. Harvey's Sons Manfg. Co. v. Sterling Materials Co., 247 Mich. 317. However, "not every business activity by a foreign corporation in the State of suit will justify the conclusion that it is doing business therein so as to render it subject to suit."

  7. Dobson v. Maytag Sales Corp.

    290 N.W. 346 (Mich. 1940)   Cited 8 times
    In Dobson, this Court concluded that the defendant foreign corporation was "doing business [in Michigan] in such a sense as to make it amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State".

    14a C. J. p. 1372. In A. Harvey's Sons Manfg. Co. v. Sterling Materials Co., 247 Mich. 317, a foreign corporation, not admitted to do business within the State, sold goods to plaintiff through an agent working on commission only and taking orders subject to confirmation of defendant. The corporation did not maintain either an office or a warehouse in the State and kept no stock of goods within the State. Plaintiff complained of certain material purchased, and defendants sent its representative to assist plaintiff to dispose of the goods.

  8. Malooly v. Heating Vent. Corp.

    270 Mich. 240 (Mich. 1935)   Cited 38 times
    In Malooly v. York Heating Ventilating Corp., 270 Mich. 240, the question arose whether the defendant was carrying on business within this State.

    York also purchased fabricated material in Detroit for use in its attempt to make the apparatus work. McConnor was the agent of the defendant corporation within the language of the above-quoted section as it has been construed by this court. See Republic Acceptance Corp. v. Bennett, 220 Mich. 249, and A. Harvey's Sons Manfg. Co. v. Sterling Materials Co., 247 Mich. 317. The more difficult question is whether York was doing business in this State so as to be amenable to service of process.

  9. Brevick v. Cunard S.S. Co.

    247 N.W. 373 (N.D. 1933)   Cited 3 times
    In Brevick v. Cunard S.S. Co., 63 N.D. 210, 213, 247 N.W. 373, 375, this court held that it is the act done "which gives the plaintiff his cause of action".

    Foreign companies maintaining neither office nor warehouse, and keeping no stock in the state, but selling goods to local companies through an agent receiving only a commission on sales under written contract subject to confirmation by the foreign corporation, are held to be doing business within the state, so as to make them subject to service of process within the state of its authorized agent. Harvey Mfg. Co. v. Sterlings Materials (Wis.) 225 N.W. 538; Tetley-Sletten Dahl v. Rock Mfg. Co. 187 N.W. 204; Zabron v. Cunard S.S. Co. 131 N.W. 19; Kluver v. Middlewest Grain Co. 44 N.D. 210, 173 N.W. 468; State v. Robb-Lawrence Co. 15 N.D. 55, 106 N.W. 406. Nilles, Oehlert Nilles (Lord, Day Lord of counsel) for respondent.

  10. Cheli v. Cudahy Bros. Co.

    245 N.W. 503 (Mich. 1932)   Cited 6 times
    In Cheli v. Cudahy Bros. Co., 260 Mich. 496, where an employee of a foreign corporation, in addition to soliciting orders, performed services such as adjusting claims and filling orders by securing goods from other purchasers and keeping some goods of the company in stock at his home for immediate delivery, he was held to be such a representative of the company in this State that service upon him was service upon the company.

    Clearly, he was a representative of the company in this State, and service upon him was service upon the company. Genack v. Gorman, 224 Mich. 79; A. Harvey's Sons Manfg. Co. v. Sterling Materials Co., 247 Mich. 317. The order denying the motion to dismiss is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.