![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
December 6, 1926, Argued ; January 3, 1927
[*242] [**756] OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE KEPHART:
This appeal raises the question of jurisdiction of the State over foreign corporations. The summons was served in Philadelphia on the Delaware and Hudson Company through an agent. Appellee is a New York corporation, where its principal office is located. It is registered with the state officer, pursuant to the Act of June 8, 1911, P.L. 710.
It operates a railroad in the northeast section of the State, but has neither tracks nor roadbed in Philadelphia County. For ten years rooms were rented in an office building for [***3] an agency, known as the General Southern Freight Agent. The doors and windows display the "D. & H." sign, and the stationery, letterheads, envelopes, etc., used is the official stationery of that [*243] company. The telephone is in the company name. The rooms were occupied by a general agent, who employed seven subordinates, four of whom were attached to the Philadelphia territory, and three to the southern district. All employees were paid from the home office in New York.
The principal work or business transacted in Philadelphia was the solicitation of freight. This agency covers Pennsylvania east of Harrisburg, and extends south to Florida. From it, during 1925, originated one million out of twenty-two million tons of freight. How much of this tonnage came from Philadelphia County or this agency in Pennsylvania does not appear. Complaints as to service may be received here and forwarded to New York; these in turn are referred back to communicate the result to the shipper or consignee as the case might be. Lost freight may be traced through this office. In exceptional cases, freight charges and adjustments of freight are received and forwarded to New York. The freight [***4] incoming or outbound must pass over other carriers' lines and these adjustments may be made directly through these carriers.
No freight is actually handled, nor are bills of lading. Contracts are not made on account of freight, all must go to the principal office in New York. It is conceded appellee was engaged in commerce of both classes.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
288 Pa. 240 *; 135 A. 755 **; 1927 Pa. LEXIS 448 ***
Shambe, Appellant, v. Delaware & Hudson R.R. Co.
Prior History: [***1] Appeal, No. 276, Jan. T., 1926, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1926, No. 2942, making absolute rule to set aside service of summons and quash writ, in case of Joseph Shambe v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad Co. Affirmed.
Rule to set aside service of summons and quash writ. Before GORDON, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Rule absolute. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was order, quoting record.
Disposition: The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Mr. Justice FRAXER dissented.
freight, do business, solicitation, foreign corporation, carrier, shipper, commerce, railroad
Business & Corporate Law, Corporate Existence, Powers & Purpose, Powers, Acts Through Agents, Civil Procedure, Service of Process, Methods of Service, Foreign Service, In Rem & Personal Jurisdiction, In Personam Actions, General Overview, Service on Agents, Service on Corporations, Foreign Corporations, Jurisdiction, Constitutional Limits, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process