Farr Co. v. Gratiot
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
HALL, District Judge. .
The defendant, Air Maze Corporation, is a Delaware Corporation. It has filed a motion to dismiss and to quash service of summons for want of jurisdiction and improper venue. While there is some dispute as to the extent of the agency and activities of the defendant Gratiot, who held himself out as “factory representative” of the defendant corporation, it is conceded by the corporate defendant that his activities were more than that of a mere solicitor of sales, and in fact that the corporation was “doing business” within this district in the “jurisdictional sense.”
The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. GonzalesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Bulldog Electric Products Co. v. Cole Electric Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Weller v. Pennsylvania R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1902
3Cited by14 opinions
- Remington Rand, Inc. v. Knapp-Monarch CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
- Gulf Research & Development Co. v. LeahyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- Gulf Research & Development Co. v. Harrison, District JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. Barnes, JudgeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1952
- Gulf Research & Development Co. v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1951
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.