Leach Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Leach Co. v. Superior Court

266 Cal. App. 2d 493, 72 Cal. Rptr. 216, 1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 1535

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 14, 1968

DocketCiv. 25589

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 Cal. App. 2d 493 (Leach Co. v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leach Co. v. Superior Court, 266 Cal. App. 2d 493, 72 Cal. Rptr. 216, 1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 1535 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

Petitioner is defendant in an action brought by Kim Godfrey for personal injuries sustained when a garbage container manufactured by petitioner toppled over. After service of process upon petitioner as a foreign corporation doing business within this state, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 411, subdivision 2, petitioner moved to quash service of summons upon a showing that petitioner maintained no office, agents or employees in California, solicited no sales and conducted no other activities within the state, and sold products manufactured in Wisconsin through an independent firm operating in New York City.

There may well be no constitutional inhibition against the California court taking jurisdiction in these circumstances. (See McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220 [2 L.Ed.2d 223, 78 S.Ct. 199]; Metal-Matic, Inc. v. District Court (1966) 82 Nev. 263 [415 P.2d 617]; Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. (1961) 22 Ill.2d 432 [176 N.E.2d 761].) However, within constitutional limits the power of the California court to take jurisdiction is defined by statute. Code of Civil Procedure, section 411, subdivision 2, provides for substituted service upon a foreign corporation only when the corporation is “doing business in this state.” Here the only competent evidence before the court indicated that petitioner neither sold goods nor carried out any other business activity in California. The mere presence in the state of the equipment manufactured by petitioner is insufficient under the statute to confer jurisdiction. (Da Silveira v. Westphalia Separator Co. (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 789 [57 Cal.Rptr. 62]; Twinco Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 321 [40 Cal.Rptr. 833].)

A peremptory writ will issue as prayed.

Devine, P. J., and Rattigan, J., concurred.

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

CHRISTIAN, J.

Petitioner is defendant in an action brought by Kim Godfrey for personal injuries sustained when a garbage container manufactured by petitioner toppled over. After service of process upon petitioner as a foreign corporation doing business within this state, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 411, subdivision 2, petitioner moved to quash service of summons upon a showing that petitioner maintained no office, agents or employees in California, solicited no sales and conducted no other activities within the state, and sold products manufactured in Wisconsin through an independent firm operating in New York City.

There may well be no constitutional inhibition against the California court taking jurisdiction in these circumstances. (See McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220 [2 L.Ed.2d 223, 78 S.Ct. 199]; Metal-Matic, Inc. v. District Court (1966) 82 Nev. 263 [415 P.2d 617]; Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. (1961) 22 Ill.2d 432 [176 N.E.2d 761].) However, within constitutional limits the power of the California court to take jurisdiction is defined by statute. Code of Civil Procedure, section 411, subdivision 2, provides for substituted service upon a foreign corporation only when the corporation is “doing business in this state.” Here the only competent evidence before the court indicated that petitioner neither sold goods nor carried out any other business activity in California. The mere presence in the state of the equipment manufactured by petitioner is insufficient under the statute to confer jurisdiction. (Da Silveira v. Westphalia Separator Co. (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 789 [57 Cal.Rptr. 62]; Twinco Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 321 [40 Cal.Rptr. 833].)

A peremptory writ will issue as prayed.

Devine, P. J., and Rattigan, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 Cal. App. 2d 493, 72 Cal. Rptr. 216, 1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 1535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leach-co-v-superior-court-calctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack