Herndon-Carter Co. v. Norris & Co.
224 U.S. 496 (1912)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Herndon-Carter Co. v. Norris & Co., 224 U.S. 496 (1912)

Herndon-Carter Company v. James N. Norris, Son & Company

No. 923

Submitted April 1, 1912

Decided April 29, 1912

224 U.S. 496

Syllabus

Where jurisdiction of the circuit court involves only the questions of fact whether the defendant corporation was doing business within the jurisdiction and the person served was its agent, those questions can be brought by direct appeal to this Court under § 5 of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891.

The decree of dismissal can take the place of a certificate if the record is in such form as to show that the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and for that reason only. Excelsior Water Power Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co.,185 U. S. 282.

While the jurisdictional certificate must be issued during the term at which the question is decided, if the certificate is supplied by a decree in due form showing all that is required by the certificate, the appeal may be perfected within two year, as are other appeals. Excelsior Water Power Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co.,185 U. S. 282.

In this case, the record shows that there was but one final order or decree which at the same time quashed the service of the summons and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, and an appeal from such a decree brings to this Court the question of jurisdiction.

A foreign corporation, in order to be subject to the jurisdiction of a court, must be doing business within the the court's jurisdiction, and the service must be made there upon some duly authorized officer or agent.

In this case, as it appears from the evidence in the record that the defendant corporation was doing business within the state and that the person served was its agent at the time of service, the circuit court had jurisdiction.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the Western District of Kentucky over the person of the defendant by reason of service on defendant's agent and whether defendant was doing business in that district, are stated in the opinion.

Page 224 U. S. 497

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.