Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co.
Kendall v. Am. Automatic Loom Co., 198 U.S. 477 (1905)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1905-05-29
- Topic
- general
Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. It is objected, in the first place, by the appellee that the appellant had no statutory right to appeal directly to this court from the order setting aside the service of the subpoena. It is asserted that the case does not involve the jurisdiction of the court below within the meaning of section 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court as a Federal court is not questioned, the jurisdiction being denied upon grounds alike applicable to any other judicial tribunal, state or Federal, under the same circumstances. This case is, however, on that point governed by that of Board of Trade v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 15 opinions
Headnotes
- Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction An order of a federal circuit court setting aside service of process is reviewable by direct appeal to the Supreme Court under section 5 of the Act of March 3, 1891, as a ruling involving the jurisdiction of the court below, even though the ground of challenge applies equally to any other judicial tribunal, state or federal; the fact that federal jurisdiction as such is not questioned does not defeat appellate review.
- Civil Procedure — Service of Process Service of process on a nonresident officer of a foreign corporation is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over the corporation where the corporation was doing no business in the state at the time of service and had never conducted business there since incorporation; service on an officer or agent within the state is valid only when the corporation is in fact doing business in that state.
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is objected, in the first place, by the appellee that the appellant had no statutory right to appeal directly to this court from the order setting aside the service of the subpoena. It is asserted that the case does not involve the jurisdiction of the court below within the meaning of section 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court as a Federal court is not questioned, the jurisdiction being denied upon grounds alike applicable to any other judicial tribunal, state or Federal, under the same circumstances. This case is, however, on that point governed by that of Board of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co., decided this day (ante p. 424), where it is held that the order is reviewable by this court under the section above mentioned.
Regarding the case as properly here, the question is whether the service made upon the treasurer of the appellee corporation was a valid service upon the corporation itself. We think it was not. It is perfectly apparent that the corporation was, at the time of the service on the treasurer, doing no business whatever within the State of New York, and that it had never done any business there since it was incorporated in the State of West Virginia. While we have lately held that, in the case of a foreign corporation, the service upon a resident director of the State where,ithe service was made was a good service *483 where that corporation was doing business within that State, Pennsylvania Lumbermen’s &c. Co. v. Meyer, 197 U. S. 407, yet such service is insufficient for a court to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation where the company was not doing any business in the State, and was situated like this company at the time of the service upon the treasurer. Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U. S. 406.
The order of the Circuit Court was right, and is
Affirmed.