RICHARDSON v. FRIGIDAIRE CORPORATION et al

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

13573

Attorney(S)

Mr. Edward L. Craig, for appellant, cites: Affidavit in support of a motion should contain positive averments of facts necessary to make out case: 42 C.J., 498; 24 S.C. 202; 28 Cyc., 11; 17 Cyc., 754. Jurisdiction of foreign corporation rests upon actual presence established: 106 U.S. 350; 27 L.Ed., 222; 19 Cyc., 1328; 261 U.S. 171; 67 L.Ed., 594. As to due process of law: 170 U.S. 100; 42 L.Ed., 964; 190 U.S. 406; 47 L.Ed., 1113. Business of corporation must be such in character and extent to warrant jurisdiction: 227 U.S. 218; 57 L.Ed., 486; 33 Sup. Ct. Rep., 245; Ann. Cas. 1915-B, 77; 243 U.S. 264; 61 L.Ed., 710; 37 S.C.R., 280; 246 U.S. 79; 62 L.Ed., 587; Ann. Cas. 1918-C, 537. As to what constitutes doing business: 67 L.Ed., 594; 67 L.Ed., 373; 52 A.L.R., 735. Service upon officer or agent not sufficient: 273 U.S. 119; 71 L.Ed., 569; 190 U.S. 406; 8 L.R.A. (N.S.), 538. Inter-related corporations: 267 U.S. 333; 69 L.Ed., 634; 261 U.S. 171; 67 L.Ed., 594; 43 S.C.R., 311. Messrs. Cole L. Blease and S.M. Busby, for respondent, cite: As to serving agent of corporation: 132 S.C. 352.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

RICHARDSON v. FRIGIDAIRE CORPORATION ET AL.

February 3, 1933. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BLEASE.

The appealing defendant, Frigidaire Corporation, sued by the plaintiff, in the county Court of Richland County, appeared for the sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court, and moved for an order vacating and setting aside the attempted service of the summons and complaint in the action on it. It contended that it was a foreign corporation, not doing business in this state, and that J.R. Little, upon whom the summons and complaint were served, was not its agent.

The county Judge, Hon. M.S. Whaley, decided against the contentions of the appellant, and held that the service was valid and that the Court had jurisdiction.

The appeal involves two questions of fact: First, was the appellant doing business in this state at the time of the attempted service? And, second, was Little its duly authorized agent at the time the service of the summons and complaint were made on him?

There was sufficient evidence submitted to the county Judge to sustain his conclusions. That being so, his order, appealed from, which will be reported, is affirmed.

MESSRS. JUSTICES STABLER and BONHAM, and MR. ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE C.C. FEATHERSTONE, Circuit Judge, concur.

RICHARDSON v. FRIGIDAIRE CORPORATION ET AL.

Comments