Evansville Courier Co. v. United Press · 9,315

Court

Circuit Court, D. Indiana

Decided

Jul 2, 1896

Judge

BAKER, District Judge

Posture

Suit to enjoin defendant from withholding performance of a contract for transmission of daily telegraphic news reports

Plaintiff (1)

Evansville Courier Company

Baker & Daniels, Frank B. Burke

Defendant (1)

United Press

Chambers, Pickens & Moores

Overview

The return fails to show such service as gives the court jurisdiction, and it must therefore be set aside. Leave is granted to the plaintiff to take such further action as it may be advised.

Case summary

The Evansville Courier Company, an Indiana corporation, sued United Press, a New York corporation, in federal court in Indiana to enforce a contract for news transmission. The plaintiff served process on two individuals in Indiana: John F. Wallick (superintendent of Western Union Telegraph) and T.G.M. Fisher (a news gatherer). Defendant challenged the service, arguing neither was its agent. The court held that under Indiana statute and federal law, service was insufficient because defendant had no presence in Indiana—no office, officers, or agents—and neither Wallick nor Fisher qualified as a general or special agent. The service was set aside, but plaintiff was granted leave to take further action.

Abstract

Plaintiff sued a foreign corporation in federal court to enforce a news transmission contract and served process on two individuals claimed to be agents, but the court held service insufficient under state and federal law because the individuals did not qualify as general or special agents and the corporation lacked presence in the state with no office, officers, or agents. The service of process was set aside due to failure to establish jurisdiction. Plaintiff was granted leave to pursue further action.

Opinion of the court

Majority
opinionBAKER, District Judge

Jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship is proper
Service of process must comply with Indiana statute for corporations
Defendant had no agents in Indiana for service purposes
Neither Wallick nor Fisher was an agent of the defendant

Jurisdiction

challenged

Statutory basis

Act of March 8, 1887, as amended by the act of August 18, 1888 (25 Stat. 483, 484)

Subject matter

Diversity jurisdiction (citizens of different states)

Jurisdictional holding

Service of process was insufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the defendant; the return must be set aside

Jurisdictional facts

Plaintiff is a corporation organized under Indiana law and a citizen of Indiana
Defendant is a corporation organized under New York law and a citizen of New York

Procedural posture

Posture at trial

Suit to enjoin defendant from withholding performance of a contract for transmission of daily telegraphic news reports

Posture on appeal

Direct appeal regarding service of process and jurisdiction

Preserved issues

Whether service of process was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the defendant

Forfeited issues

None identified

Legal categories

Business

Case record

Full case name

EVANSVILLE COURIER CO. v. UNITED PRESS

Docket number

9,315

Court

Circuit Court, D. Indiana

Trial court

Circuit Court, D. Indiana

Trial court judge

BAKER, District Judge

Decided

Jul 2, 1896

Opinion author

BAKER, District Judge

Opinion type

published

Precedential status

precedential

Judges on panel

BAKER, District Judge

Issues & holdings

Issues raised

reversed

Holdings

Whether service of process upon John F. Wallick and T.G.M. Fisher was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the defendant (United Press)

reversed

Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

Neither person served was an officer or general/special agent of the defendant under Indiana statute; defendant had no presence in Indiana

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Holdings of the court

Service of process on foreign corporation

Service of process was insufficient to establish jurisdiction over the defendant because neither Wallick nor Fisher was an officer or general/special agent of the defendant under Indiana law

Defendant had no office, officers, or agents in Indiana; Wallick was merely a telegraph company manager with no authority to represent defendant; Fisher was an independent news gatherer paid per item with no agency relationship

unanimousbinding precedent

Error analysis

Insufficient service of process on defendant — procedural · error foundNot applicable as error goes to jurisdiction · not applicable

Statutory interpretation

Statute

1 Burns’ Rev. St. Ind. 1894, p. 102, § 318 (Rev. St. 1881, § 316)

Question

Who qualifies as an agent for service of process on a corporation

Court's reading

Service may be made on president, presiding officer, chairman, chief officer, or if not found, on cashier, treasurer, director, secretary, clerk, general or special agent; neither Wallick nor Fisher met these criteria

Canons applied

Plain meaning

Statute

Act of March 8, 1887, as amended by the act of August 18, 1888 (25 Stat. 483, 484)

Question

Venue for diversity cases

Court's reading

Suit may be brought in district of residence of either plaintiff or defendant when jurisdiction is based solely on diversity

Canons applied

Plain meaning

Standards of review

Sufficiency of service of process — de novo Legal determination of whether service complied with statutory requirements

Timeline

Events

149

Days, incident to ruling

Feb 4, 1896 — Jul 2, 1896

Span

Feb 4, 1896procedural eventcited in opinion

Service of subpoena in chancery on John F. Wallick, superintendent of Western Union Telegraph, alleged as agent of defendant

Outcome: Process served

Attempt to establish jurisdiction over defendant through service on alleged agent

Service of process sufficiency

Marshal · John F. Wallick Indianapolis, Indiana trial court

Feb 5, 1896procedural eventcited in opinion

Service of subpoena in chancery on T.G.M. Fisher, alleged as agent of defendant

Outcome: Process served

Attempt to establish jurisdiction over defendant through service on alleged agent

Service of process sufficiency

Marshal · T.G.M. Fisher Indianapolis, Indiana trial court

Jul 2, 1896rulingcited in opinion

Court issued opinion setting aside service of process and granting leave for plaintiff to take further action

Outcome: Service set aside

Final ruling on jurisdiction issue

Service of process sufficiency

BAKER, District Judge Circuit Court, D. Indiana trial court

Facts & evidence

Incident

Location

Indianapolis, Indiana

Key facts

5 facts

Plaintiff (Evansville Courier Co.) sued defendant (United Press) to enforce a contract for news transmission
Defendant is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York City
Defendant has no office, officers, or agents in Indiana
Process was served on John F. Wallick (superintendent of Western Union Telegraph) and T.G.M. Fisher (news gatherer)
Defendant filed a plea in abatement challenging the service of process

Disputed questions

Whether Wallick and Fisher were agents of the defendant for service of process

Procedural history

4 steps

Plaintiff filed suit in Circuit Court, D. Indiana
Defendant entered special appearance and filed plea in abatement
Evidence taken by a master
Court ruled on sufficiency of service of process

Evidence in the record

Testimonial

Testimony from Walter P. Phillips, secretary and treasurer of United Press, that Fisher was not an employee or agent
Evidence from master showing defendant's New York incorporation and lack of Indiana presence

Documentary

Contract for news transmission
Return of service by marshal

Challenged

Evidence type: Service of process return · Challenge basis: Insufficiency under Indiana statute and lack of agency · Trial court ruling: excluded · Reasoning: Persons served were not agents of defendant · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed

Objects of relevance

Telegraph wires leased by United Press from Western Union for news transmission

Authorities

Cited authorities (3)

Machine Co. v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41, 43, 10 Sup. Ct. 485

followedprecedent

Cited for rule that in diversity cases, suit may be brought in district of either party

Construction Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98, 106, 11 Sup. Ct. 86

appliedprecedent

Cited for principle that foreign corporation not doing business in state cannot be served if no officer is there representing it

N. K. Fairbank & Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 9 U. S. App. 212, 4 C. C. A. 403, 54 Fed. 420

appliedpersuasive

Cited analogously for lack of agency relationship in similar context

Related cases (6)

Machine Co. v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41, 43, 10 Sup. Ct. 485

prior appeal

Cited for proposition that suit may be brought in district of either party in diversity cases

Shaw v. Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444, 12 Sup. Ct. 935

prior appeal

Cited for proposition that suit may be brought in district of either party in diversity cases

Pacific Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202, 13 Sup. Ct. 44

prior appeal

Cited for proposition that suit may be brought in district of either party in diversity cases

In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 221, 229, 16 Sup. Ct. 273

prior appeal

Cited for proposition that suit may be brought in district of either party in diversity cases

Construction Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98, 106, 11 Sup. Ct. 86

prior appeal

Cited for rule that foreign corporation not doing business in state cannot be served if no officer is there representing it

N. K. Fairbank & Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 9 U. S. App. 212, 4 C. C. A. 403, 54 Fed. 420

prior appeal

Cited analogously for lack of agency relationship

Statutes

1 Burns’ Rev. St. Ind. 1894, § 318 (service on corporations)
Act of March 8, 1887, as amended by act of August 18, 1888 (25 Stat. 483, 484) (venue for diversity cases)

Standards & doctrines

De novo review for legal sufficiency of service
Agency principles for service of process

Legal principles applied

Foreign corporation must have agent in state for valid service
Diversity cases may be brought in district of either party's residence

Index terms63

Summary terms

Legal mechanisms

Various actions

Various actors

Legal concepts

Legal outcomes

Legal issues

Legal procedures

Legal remedies

Legal evidence

Legal arguments

Legal defenses

Legal penalties

Legal procedural steps

Geo locations

Judges

Attorneys

Procedural terms

Substantive offenses

Entities and documentation

Legal actions

Action type

reversed

Target

Service of process

Appealed from

Marshal's return of service

Context

Court set aside the service of process as insufficient to establish jurisdiction over the defendant

Scope

full

Further instructions

Leave granted to plaintiff to take further action

Disposition vote

unanimous

Search facets

Parties

Judges

Baker

Courts

Locations

Statutes cited