Knapp v. Bullock Tractor Co.
District Court, S.D. California
At Law. Two actions — one by J. Herbert Knapp and another, partners doing business as Knapp & Black, against the Bullock Tractor Company, and the other by L- F. Vance against the Chicago Portrait Company and others. On motions to1 quash the service of summons. These two cases, though entirely unrelated in other respects, present the same general question of law, and for that reason, and for purposes of brevity, have been considered and will be decided, together.
Read the full summary
At Law. Two actions — one by J. Herbert Knapp and another, partners doing business as Knapp & Black, against the Bullock Tractor Company, and the other by L- F. Vance against the Chicago Portrait Company and others. On motions to1 quash the service of summons. These two cases, though entirely unrelated in other respects, present the same general question of law, and for that reason, and for purposes of brevity, have been considered and will be decided, together. The question in each case is: When is a foreign corporation "doing business” within the state of .California to an extent sufficient…
1Opinion of the CourtBledsoe, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The contentions of defendants in both cases seem to be directed to the point that, because they are engaged in interstate commerce, they are not “doing business” in the state of California within the terms of the law of said state providing for service of summons. Section 411 of the Code of Civil Procedure of California reads:
*549“The summons must be served by delivering a copy thereof as follows: * * 2. If suit is against a foreign corporation, or a nonresident joint stock company or association, doing business and having a managing or business agent, cashier…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- St. Clair v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. McKibbinSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Liquid Veneer Corporation v. SmucklerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
- State v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1946
- Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. JohnsonArizona Supreme Court · 1946
- St. Mary’s Oil Engine Co v. Jackson Ice & Fuel Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Milbank v. Standard Motor Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.