Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Davis v. Farmers Co-Operative Equity Co.

Davis v. Farmers Co-Operative Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312 (1923)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1923-05-21
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • not dissimilar in analogy to the facts here

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Davis v. Farmers Co-Operative Equity Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
231 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — State Regulation of Interstate Carriers The solicitation of freight and passenger traffic by a railroad in a state remote from its own lines is a recognized part of the business of interstate transportation. 262 U.S. at 315
  2. Constitutional Law — State Statutes Subjecting Foreign Corporations to Service of Process A state statute providing that any foreign corporation having an agent within the state for the solicitation of freight and passenger traffic over lines outside the state may be served with summons by delivery of a copy to that agent imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce and is void under the Commerce Clause as applied to an action against a railroad company that neither owns nor operates a railroad within the state, brought by a plaintiff who does not and never did reside there, upon a cause of action that arose elsewhere out of a transaction entered into elsewhere. 262 U.S. at 315
  3. Constitutional Law — Commerce Clause Courts take judicial notice of the large volume and importance of litigation against interstate carriers on personal injury and freight claims, and of the heavy expense and impairment of carrier efficiency entailed when such litigation proceeds in jurisdictions remote from where the cause of action arose. 262 U.S. at 315
  4. Constitutional Law — Limits of State Jurisdiction over Foreign Carriers The orderly and effective administration of justice does not require that a foreign carrier submit to suit in a state in which the cause of action did not arise, in which the transaction giving rise to it was not entered upon, in which the carrier neither owns nor operates a railroad, and in which the plaintiff does not reside. 262 U.S. at 317
  5. Constitutional Law — Public Interest in Interstate Transportation Avoidance of waste in interstate transportation, as well as maintenance of service, has become a direct concern of the public, and a state statute requiring interstate carriers to submit generally to suit unreasonably obstructs and unduly burdens interstate commerce. 262 U.S. at 317
  6. Constitutional Law — Commerce Clause Where a state statute as construed and applied violates the Commerce Clause, the court need not consider whether it also violates the Fourteenth Amendment. 262 U.S. at 318
DAVISv. FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE CO.,262 U.S. 312(1923)
43 S.Ct. 556
DAVIS, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, AS AGENT, ETC.v. FARMERS
CO-OPERATIVE EQUITY COMPANY.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
No. 270.
Argued April 17, 18, 1923.
Decided May 21, 1923.
1. Solicitation of traffic by railroads in States remote from their lines is part of the business of interstate transportation. P. 315. 2. A state statute which provides that any foreign corporation having an agent in the State for the solicitation of freight and passenger traffic over lines outside the State may be served with summons by delivering a copy thereof to such agent, imposes an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce and is void under thePage 313Commerce Clause, as applied to an action brought against a railroad company which neither owns nor operates a railroad within the State, by a plaintiff who does not and did not reside there, upon a cause of action which arose elsewhere out of a transaction entered into elsewhere. Laws Minnesota, 1913, c. 218. P. 315.Missouri, Kansas Texas Ry. Co. v.Reynolds,255 U.S. 565, andSt. Louis Southwestern Ry.Co. v.Alexander,227 U.S. 218, distinguished. 3. The Court notices judicially the large volume and importance of litigation against interstate carriers on personal injury and freight claims, and the heavy expense, and impairment of the carriers' efficiency, entailed when the litigation is in jurisdictions remote from where the cause of action arose — also that the burden imposed on such carriers by the Minnesota statute here involved (supra) is heavy, and that the resulting obstruction to interstate commerce must be serious. P. 315. 4. Avoidance of waste, in interstate transportation, as well as maintenance of service, has become a direct concern of the public. P. 317.150 Minn. 534, reversed.
ERROR to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota
affirming a judgment for damages for loss of grain shipped
between two points in Kansas.
Mr. Gardiner LathropandMr. Homer W. Davis, with whomMr. Thomas F. QuinnandMr. William T. Faricywere on the briefs, for plaintiff in error.Mr. Morton Barrows, with whomMr. George H. Lamar, Mr.Frederick M. MinerandMr. Walter W. Pattersonwere on the brief, for defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
A statute of Minnesota (Laws 1913, c. 218, p. 274; General Statutes, 1913, § 7735) provides that:

"Any foreign corporation having an agent in this state for the solicitation of freight and passenger traffic or either thereof over its lines outside of this state, may be servedPage 314with summons by delivering a copy thereof to such agent."

Whether this statute, as construed and applied, violates the Federal Constitution is the only question for decision.

The Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company is a Kansas corporation engaged in interstate transportation. It does not own or operate any railroad in Minnesota; but it maintains there an agent for solicitation of traffic. In April, 1920, suit was brought by another Kansas corporation in a court of Minnesota against the Director General of Railroads, as agent, on a cause of action arising under federal control. Service was made pursuant to the Minnesota statute.1The recovery sought was for loss of grain shipped under a bill of lading issued by the carrier in Kansas for transportation over its line from one point in that State to another. So far as appears the transaction was in no way connected with Minnesota or with the soliciting agency located there. Defendant appeared specially; claimed that, as to it, the statute authorizing service violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the commerce clause; and moved to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. The motion was denied. After appropriate proceeding, the trial court entered final judgment for plaintiff; its judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota,150 Minn. 534; and the case is here on writ of error under § 237 of the Judicial Code.Page 315

Solicitation of traffic by railroads, in States remote from their lines, is a recognized part of the business of interstate transportation.McCallv.California,136 U.S. 104. As construed by the highest court of Minnesota, this statute compels every foreign interstate carrier to submit to suit there as a condition of maintaining a soliciting agent within the State. Jurisdiction is not limited to suits arising out of business transacted within Minnesota. CompareMitchell Furniture Co. v.Selden Breck Construction Co.,257 U.S. 213;Missouri PacificR.R. Co. v.Clarendon Boat Oar Co.,257 U.S. 533;Chipman,Limitedv.Thomas B. Jeffery Co.,251 U.S. 373. It is asserted, whatever the nature of the cause of action, wherever it may have arisen, and although the plaintiff is not, and never has been, a resident of the State.Armstrong Co. v.New YorkCentral R.R. Co.,129 Minn. 104;Lagergrenv.PennsylvaniaR.R. Co.,130 Minn. 35;Rishmillerv.Denver Rio GrandeR.R. Co.,134 Minn. 261;Merchants Elevator Co. v.ChesapeakeOhio Ry. Co.,147 Minn. 188;Callaghanv.Union PacificR.R. Co.,148 Minn. 482. This condition imposes upon interstate commerce a serious and unreasonable burden which renders the statute obnoxious to the commerce clause. CompareSioux RemedyCo. v.Cope,235 U.S. 197,203.

That the claims against interstate carriers for personal injuries and for loss and damage of freight are numerous; that the amounts demanded are large; that in many cases carriers deem it imperative, or advisable, to leave the determination of their liability to the courts; that litigation in States and jurisdictions remote from that in which the cause of action arose entails absence of employees from their customary occupations; and that this impairs efficiency in operation, and causes, directly and indirectly, heavy expense to the carriers; these are matters of common knowledge. Facts, of which we, also, take judicial notice, indicate that the burden upon interstatePage 316carriers imposed specifically by the statute here assailed is a heavy one; and that the resulting obstruction to commerce must be serious.2During federal control absences of employees incident to such litigation were found, by the Director General, to interfere so much with the physical operation of the railroads, that he issued General Order No. 18 (and 18A) which required suit to be brought in the county or district where the cause of action arose or where the plaintiff resided at the time it accrued. That order was held reasonable and valid inAlabamaVicksburg Ry. Co. v.Journey,257 U.S. 111. The facts recited in the order, to justify its issue, are of general application, in time of peace as well as of war.

The fact that the business carried on by a corporation is entirely interstate in character does not render the corporation immune from the ordinary process of the courts of a State.International Harvester Co. v.Kentucky,234 U.S. 579. The requirements of orderly, effective administration of justice are paramount. InKanev.New Jersey,242 U.S. 160,167, a statute was sustained which required non-resident owners of motor vehicles to appoint a state official as agent upon whom process might be served in suits arising from their use within the State, because the burden thereby imposed upon interstate commerce was held to be a reasonable requirement for the protection of the public. It may be that a statute like that here assailed would be valid although applied to suits in which the cause of action arose elsewhere, if the transaction out of which it arose had been enteredPage 317upon within the State,3or if the plaintiffs was, when it arose, a resident of the State.4These questions are not before us; and we express no opinion upon them. But orderly, effective administration of justice clearly does not require that a foreign carrier shall submit to a suit in a State in which the cause of action did not arise, in which the transaction giving rise to it was not entered upon, in which the carrier neither owns nor operates a railroad, and in which the plaintiff does not reside. The public and the carriers are alike interested in maintaining adequate, uninterrupted transportation service at reasonable cost. This common interest is emphasized by Transportation Act, 1920, which authorizes rate increases necessary to ensure to carriers efficiently operated a fair return on property devoted to the public use. SeeRailroadCommission of Wisconsinv.Chicago, Burlington Quincy R.R.Co.,257 U.S. 563;New England Divisions Case,261 U.S. 184. Avoidance of waste, in interstate transportation, as well as maintenance of service, has become a direct concern of the public. With these ends the Minnesota statute, as here applied, unduly interferes. By requiring from interstate carriers general submission to suit, it unreasonably obstructs, and unduly burdens, interstate commerce.

The case at bar resembles, in its facts, but is not identical with,Missouri, Kansas Texas Ry. Co. v.Reynolds,255 U.S. 565, andSt. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v.Alexander,227 U.S. 218. In the former, the validity of a similar Massachusetts statute was sustained in aperPage 318curiamopinion. In the latter, jurisdiction was upheld in the absence of a statute concerning solicitation. But in both cases the only constitutional objection asserted was violation of the due process clause. SeeReynoldsv.Missouri, Kansas TexasRy. Co.,224 Mass. 379;228 Mass. 584. Since we hold that the Minnesota statute as construed and applied violates the commerce clause, we have no occasion to consider whether it also violates the Fourteenth Amendment.5Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
  1. Page 314 The alleged cause of action having arisen during federal control, the action was brought pursuant to § 206(a) of Transportation Act 1920, February 28, 1920, c. 91,41 Stat. 456, 461, against the Director General, as Agent. A contract had been made with the carrier for the conduct of litigation arising out of operation during federal control. Hence, under § 206(b) process could be served upon the agent of the company "if such agent . . is authorized by law to be served with process in proceedings brought against such carrier." The question of the validity of the service is, thus, the same as if suit had been brought against the company on such a cause of action arising after federal control had terminated. ↩
  2. Page 316 A message, dated February 2, 1923, of the Governor of Minnesota to its Legislature, recites that a recent examination of the calendars of the district courts in 67 of the 87 counties of the State disclosed that in those counties there were then pending 1,028 personal injury cases in which non-resident plaintiffs seek damages aggregating nearly $26,000,000 from foreign railroad corporations which do not operate any line within Minnesota. ↩
  3. Page 317 CompareInternational Harvester Co. v.Kentucky,234 U.S. 579; "Jurisdiction over nonresidents doing business within a State", by Austin W. Scott, 32 Harv. Law Rev. 871, 887. ↩
  4. Page 317 CompareBlakev.McClung,172 U.S. 239;Chambersv.Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co.,207 U.S. 142;Maxwellv.Bugbee,250 U.S. 525,537;Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v.Eggen,252 U.S. 553;Kenneyv.Supreme Lodge,252 U.S. 411. ↩
  5. Page 318 CompareGreenv.Chicago, Burlington Quincy Ry. Co.,205 U.S. 530;Philadelphia Reading Ry. Co. v.McKibbin,243 U.S. 264;Rosenberg Bros. Co. v.Curtis Brown Co.,260 U.S. 516;Bank of Americav.Whitney Central National Bank,261 U.S. 171. AlsoConnecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. v.Spratley,172 U.S. 602;Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mutual FireInsurance Co. v.Meyer,197 U.S. 407;Old Wayne Mutual LifeAssociationv.McDonough,204 U.S. 8;Commercial MutualAccident Co. v.Davis,213 U.S. 245;Pennsylvania FireInsurance Co. v.Gold Issue Mining Milling Co.,243 U.S. 93. ↩