R. A. Kelley Co. v. Garvin Machine Co.
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
Heard on motion to dismiss the action and quash the process of attachment and garnishment
1Opinion of the CourtHunt, J.
The agreed statement of facts recites that the defendant is a corporation under the laws of the state of New York, having no agent or place of *351business in the state of Ohio; that the J. A. Fay & Egan Company, the garnishee herein, is a corporation under the Jaws of the state of West Virginia, having its principal office in Cincinnati, Ohio, and also a place of business and managing agent in Chicago, Illinois, and having no office or place of business in the state of West Virginia, other than is required by the statutory provisions relating to the appointment of an agent or attorney in said…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- The Lafayette Ins. Co. v. FRENCHSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Railroad Company v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Boswell's Lessee v. OtisSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.