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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedAugust 11, 1959

Docket12878_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 269 F.2d 837 (Air Devices, Inc. v. Titus Manufacturing Corp. And C. R. Hutcheon, Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 F.2d 837, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/air-devices-inc-v-titus-manufacturing-corp-and-c-r-hutcheon-ca3-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack