Air Devices, Inc. v. Titus Manufacturing Corp. And C. R. Hutcheon, Incorporated

Third Circuit

Air Devices, Inc. v. Titus Manufacturing Corp. And C. R. Hutcheon, Incorporated

269 F.2d 837, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5415

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided August 11, 1959·No. 12878_1·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court below granted a motion filed by Titus, an Iowa corporation, to quash the service as to it and dismissed Titus as a party defendant to the suit, entering judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C. The complaint alleged infringement of copyright laws and unfair competition. The action invoked the jurisdiction of the court below on the basis of diversity and under the copyright laws, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (c), 1332, and 1338 (1952). The court below, after a careful review of the record, found that Hutcheon’s status in its relationship to Titus was that of an independent contractor and that therefore Titus was not present in New Jersey in a sense that would support service of process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) *838 (1952); Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., and Springs Cotton Mills v. Machinecraft, Inc., D.C.S.C.1957, 156 F. Supp. 372. See also Davega, Inc. v. Lincoln Furniture Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 1928, 29 F.2d 164. It appears clearly that Titus has not maintained the minimum contacts in New Jersey necessary to warrant the court below in assuming jurisdiction of the foreign corporation, Titus.

Finding no error in the judgment appealed from, it will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The court below granted a motion filed by Titus, an Iowa corporation, to quash the service as to it and dismissed Titus as a party defendant to the suit, entering judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C. The complaint alleged infringement of copyright laws and unfair competition. The action invoked the jurisdiction of the court below on the basis of diversity and under the copyright laws, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (c), 1332, and 1338 (1952). The court below, after a careful review of the record, found that Hutcheon’s status in its relationship to Titus was that of an independent contractor and that therefore Titus was not present in New Jersey in a sense that would support service of process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) *838 (1952); Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., and Springs Cotton Mills v. Machinecraft, Inc., D.C.S.C.1957, 156 F. Supp. 372. See also Davega, Inc. v. Lincoln Furniture Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 1928, 29 F.2d 164. It appears clearly that Titus has not maintained the minimum contacts in New Jersey necessary to warrant the court below in assuming jurisdiction of the foreign corporation, Titus.

Finding no error in the judgment appealed from, it will be affirmed.

Air Devices, Inc. v. Titus Manufacturing Corp. And C. R. Hutcheon, Incorporated, 269 F.2d 837, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5415 (3d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

269 F.2d 837 (Air Devices, Inc. v. Titus Manufacturing Corp. And C. R. Hutcheon, Incorporated) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related