Dimarco v. Sterling Electronics Corp.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Dimarco v. Sterling Electronics Corp.

336 So. 2d 964, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3427

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 23, 1976

DocketNo. 7476

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 336 So. 2d 964 (Dimarco v. Sterling Electronics Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dimarco v. Sterling Electronics Corp., 336 So. 2d 964, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3427 (La. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal on exception to the jurisdiction over the person of a Texas resident who was the fiduciary established by plaintiff’s employer in Louisiana to effect employee stock purchases through payroll deductions. We conclude the Texan did business in Louisiana and we therefore reverse.

Plaintiff’s employer was a foreign corporation of which the defendant Texan was a vice-president. The corporation supplied printed forms in Louisiana appointing defendant “trustee” to receive the payroll deductions and purchase stock in the open market, with the obligation to deliver the certificates to the employee on written request. The defendant obviously consented to the corporation’s soliciting in Louisiana [965]*965the execution of the contracts naming himself as fiduciary to receive funds and buy stock. Defendant thus did business in Louisiana “by an agent” and thereby subjected himself to the jurisdiction of Louisiana courts in respect to any cause of action arising from that business; La.R.S. 13:3201(a). His affidavit that he did no business in Louisiana is a mistaken conclusion of law.

Reversed.

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

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal on exception to the jurisdiction over the person of a Texas resident who was the fiduciary established by plaintiff’s employer in Louisiana to effect employee stock purchases through payroll deductions. We conclude the Texan did business in Louisiana and we therefore reverse.

Plaintiff’s employer was a foreign corporation of which the defendant Texan was a vice-president. The corporation supplied printed forms in Louisiana appointing defendant “trustee” to receive the payroll deductions and purchase stock in the open market, with the obligation to deliver the certificates to the employee on written request. The defendant obviously consented to the corporation’s soliciting in Louisiana [965]*965the execution of the contracts naming himself as fiduciary to receive funds and buy stock. Defendant thus did business in Louisiana “by an agent” and thereby subjected himself to the jurisdiction of Louisiana courts in respect to any cause of action arising from that business; La.R.S. 13:3201(a). His affidavit that he did no business in Louisiana is a mistaken conclusion of law.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 So. 2d 964, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dimarco-v-sterling-electronics-corp-lactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack