Gustafson v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Gustafson v. Johnson

51 N.W.2d 118, 235 Minn. 376, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 590

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 11, 1952

DocketNo. 35,573

StatusPublished

This text of 51 N.W.2d 118 (Gustafson v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gustafson v. Johnson, 51 N.W.2d 118, 235 Minn. 376, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 590 (Mich. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Knutson, Justice.

This is a companion case to Gustafson v. Johnson (No. 35,529) 235 Minn. 358, 51 N. W. (2d) 108, filed herewith. The facts are [377]*377the same, except that in this case the original defendants attempted to acquire jurisdiction over the nonresident corporation by service of process upon one Joseph R. Sitter, an employe. On motion of respondent, the nonresident corporation, the trial court set aside such service, and this appeal is from the order so doing.

It is the contention of appellants that Sitter was an agent of respondent within the meaning of M. S. A. 548.08 upon whom service of process could be made. We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that the court’s finding that Sitter was only a soliciting agent is amply sustained by the evidence. Service upon such soliciting agent does not confer jurisdiction upon our courts. Abramovich v. Continental Can Co. Inc. 166 Minn. 151, 207 N. W. 201.

Affirmed.

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

Knutson, Justice.

This is a companion case to Gustafson v. Johnson (No. 35,529) 235 Minn. 358, 51 N. W. (2d) 108, filed herewith. The facts are [377]*377the same, except that in this case the original defendants attempted to acquire jurisdiction over the nonresident corporation by service of process upon one Joseph R. Sitter, an employe. On motion of respondent, the nonresident corporation, the trial court set aside such service, and this appeal is from the order so doing.

It is the contention of appellants that Sitter was an agent of respondent within the meaning of M. S. A. 548.08 upon whom service of process could be made. We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that the court’s finding that Sitter was only a soliciting agent is amply sustained by the evidence. Service upon such soliciting agent does not confer jurisdiction upon our courts. Abramovich v. Continental Can Co. Inc. 166 Minn. 151, 207 N. W. 201.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 N.W.2d 118, 235 Minn. 376, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gustafson-v-johnson-minn-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack