United States Graphite Co. v. Pacific Graphite Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
This is an action of assumpsit to recover damages for tbe alleged breach of a contract, which the declaration claims was committed in the state of Michigan. The'plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Michigan. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of California, and has its office at San Francisco’, in that state.
Read the full summary
This is an action of assumpsit to recover damages for tbe alleged breach of a contract, which the declaration claims was committed in the state of Michigan. The'plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Michigan. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of California, and has its office at San Francisco’, in that state. It has no office nor agency in Michigan, and none elsewhere than at San Francisco, except an agency in Mexico, where its mines are situated. The suit is upon, a written contract between the parties, which is set forth in…
1Opinion of the CourtSwan, District Judge
(after stating tke facts). Tke validity of tke service of process is rested upon the construction given to section 8145, How. Ann. St. Mich., by tke supreme court of Michigan. It is also necessarily claimed that tke plaintiff’s cause of action accrued in tke state oí Michigan. In Shickle, H. & H. Iron Co. v. Wiley Const. Co., 61 Mich. 226, 28 N. W. 77, the court held that, if ihe officer of tke foreign corporation is within the jurisdiction, and served there, such service is valid to bind the corporation, and subject it to the jurisdiction of the court; and the defense that the officer served…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- St. Clair v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- The Lafayette Ins. Co. v. FRENCHSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Goldey v. Morning NewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- In Re HohorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Co. v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bach v. BrownUtah Supreme Court · 1898
- Brush Creek Coal & Mining Co. v. Morgan-Gardner Electric Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1905
- Ladd Metals Co. v. American Mining Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1907
- Noel Const. Co. of Baltimore City v. George W. Smith & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland · 1911