Mississippi Chemical Corporation, a Mississippi Corporation, and Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., an Ohio Corporation v. The Hoechst-Uhde Corporation

Fifth Circuit

Mississippi Chemical Corporation, a Mississippi Corporation, and Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., an Ohio Corporation v. The Hoechst-Uhde Corporation

338 F.2d 662, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3743

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 30, 1964

Docket21278

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 338 F.2d 662 (Mississippi Chemical Corporation, a Mississippi Corporation, and Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., an Ohio Corporation v. The Hoechst-Uhde Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mississippi Chemical Corporation, a Mississippi Corporation, and Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., an Ohio Corporation v. The Hoechst-Uhde Corporation, 338 F.2d 662, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3743 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Invoking jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship, the appellant Mississippi Chemical Corporation brought an action in the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against the appellant Vulcan-Cincinnati, Incorporated, and Hoechst-Uhde Corporation. Jurisdiction over Hoechst-Uhde was attempted by constructive service, delivery of a summons having been made under a state statute upon the Secretary of State of the State of Mississippi. Vulcan-Cincinnati filed a cross-claim against Hoechst-Uhde. The district court relied heavily on Mississippi Wood Preserving Co. v. Rothschild, 5th Cir. 1953, 201 F.2d 233, and decided that the activities of Hoechst-Uhde were not such as brought it within the Mississippi statute permitting the constructive service of process on any non-resident corporation not qualified to do business in Mississippi but “who shall do any business or perform any character of work or service in this state * * *.” Code Miss.1942, §§ 1437-1438. The opinion of the district court, reported at 224 F.Supp. 11, with which we are in agreement, sets forth the reasons for its action. See also Walker v. Savell, 5th Cir., 1964, 335 F.2d 536. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Invoking jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship, the appellant Mississippi Chemical Corporation brought an action in the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against the appellant Vulcan-Cincinnati, Incorporated, and Hoechst-Uhde Corporation. Jurisdiction over Hoechst-Uhde was attempted by constructive service, delivery of a summons having been made under a state statute upon the Secretary of State of the State of Mississippi. Vulcan-Cincinnati filed a cross-claim against Hoechst-Uhde. The district court relied heavily on Mississippi Wood Preserving Co. v. Rothschild, 5th Cir. 1953, 201 F.2d 233, and decided that the activities of Hoechst-Uhde were not such as brought it within the Mississippi statute permitting the constructive service of process on any non-resident corporation not qualified to do business in Mississippi but “who shall do any business or perform any character of work or service in this state * * *.” Code Miss.1942, §§ 1437-1438. The opinion of the district court, reported at 224 F.Supp. 11, with which we are in agreement, sets forth the reasons for its action. See also Walker v. Savell, 5th Cir., 1964, 335 F.2d 536. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 F.2d 662, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mississippi-chemical-corporation-a-mississippi-corporation-and-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack