CONFLICT OF LAWS-JURISDICTION-FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE

Authors

Abstract

A summons addressed to the defendant corporation was served upon one of its officers at his private residence in Minnesota. The defendant, appearing specially, moved to set aside the service on the ground that it was a foreign corporation not transacting business in the state and that it had empowered no one to accept service of process there in its behalf. The plaintiff contended that the acquisition and ownership of property in Minnesota brought the defendant into the state and under the jurisdiction of its courts. Held, jurisdiction over the corporate property did not give jurisdiction over the corporate person and since the defendant was not doing business there at the time of service the motion to set aside should be granted. Paterson v. Shattuck, etc. Co. (Minn. 1926) 210 N.W. 620.

Recommended Citation

CONFLICT OF LAWS-JURISDICTION-FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE, 26 Mich. L. Rev. 85 (1927).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol26/iss1/4