The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919. Page: 36
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
36 256 FEDERAL REPORTER
fendant in New York. They do not bind the defendant, unless and
until there accepted by it. After transmitting an order, he has per-
formed no further duties in connection with the goods ordered. All
orders have been filled at the New York factory. Bills for all goods
so ordered and forwarded are sent from New York direct to pur-
chasers, and remittances in payment thereof have been made direct
to the defendant in New York. No manufacturing has been done
by the defendant, nor any of its books of account kept, in Massachu-
setts; nor has it had any bank account in said state.
 "Place of business," in section 48 of the Judicial Code (Act
March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1100 [Comp. St. 1030]), is understood
to mean, not a place at which any transactions having any reference
to the foreign corporation are carried on, but a place at which it does
such business as makes it "found" within the district for purposes of
service; i. e., business carried on in such manner and to such an ex-
tent as will warrant the inference' that it is present there through its
agents. Business being done within'the district in this sense, and acts
of infringement done therein appearing, section 48 is understood to
impose the further requirement, as necessary to jurisdiction, that it be
done at a regular and established place, but not to imply that jurisdic-
tion may be obtained without showing that the business done within
the district is of the above character.
So long as it followed in Boston only' the course of business above
described, I do not think the defendant can be said to have been doing
business at the Franklin street office in 'the necessary sense. Its rep-
resentative there found only took and forwarded orders to its home
office in New York for acceptance or rejection. Green v. Chicago, etc.,
Co., 205 U. S. 530, 27 Sup. Ct. 595, 51 L. Ed. 916; Tyler Co..v. Lud-
low-Saylor, etc., Co., 236 U. S. 723, 35 Sup. Ct. 458, 59 L. Ed. 808;
General, etc., Co. v. Best (D, C.) 2?0 Fed. 347. That his authority
from the defendant enabled hini to complete transactions there on its
behalf, or to represent it there in negotiations so as to bind it, as in St.
Louis, etc., Co. v. Alexander, 227 U. S. 218, 33 Sup. Ct. 245, 57 L. Ed.
486, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 77, does not appear, nor that he ever assumed
to exercise such authority there. Only in the solitary instance below
considered is there any claim that said course of business was de-
parted from in any respect.
If'the above conclusion is wrong, and the business done as above in
Massachusetts is to be regarded as sufficient in character to make it
liable to service of process therein, I see no reason to doubt that the
requirement of a regular and established place of business is satisfied.
The defendant's name appeared in full on the office door, with "George
A. Bath, Manager," following. Its name appeared' also in the direc-
tory at the entrance of the building as occupant of the office, and in
the telephone directory as having its telephone address there. There
is no claim that the office was shared with any one else. Whether
the defendant or Bath was lessee of the office does not appear, but,
although Bath advanced the monthly rent as it fell due, the defendant
reimbursed him in their next monthly accounting for office expenses.
But these facts go no further, in my view, than to show a regular and
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919., legislative document, 1919; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38827/m1/50/: accessed December 16, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.