Legal Opinion

Watson-Higgins Milling Co. v. St. Paul Milling Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1931No. Calendar 35,930PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

This is appeal in the nature of certiorari to review an order denying defendant’s motion to set aside service of a writ of summons for want of jurisdiction of the person of defendant, a Minnesota corporation.

It is said in Philadelphia, & Reading R. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264 (37 Sup. Ct. 280):

“A foreign corporation is amenable to process to enforce a personal liability, in the absence of consent, only if it is doing business within the State in such manner and to such extent as to warrant the inference that it is present there. And even if it is doing business within the State the process…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. McKibbinSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Furst & Thomas v. BrewsterSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. Federal Reserve BankDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1922
  4. A. Harvey's Sons Manf'g Co. v. Sterling Materials Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Rath Packing Co. v. General Cold Storage Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Dobson v. Maytag Sales Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Kinney v. Kraml Dairy, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1959
  3. Hellman v. LaddMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Donley v. Whirlpool CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1964
  5. Frees v. Southern Michigan Cold Storage Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1972

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API