U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1959

Air Devices, Inc. v. Titus Manufacturing Corp. And C. R. Hutcheon, Incorporated

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided August 11, 1959 · Biggs, McLAUGHLIN, Per Curiam, Staley

269 F.2d 837; 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5415 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Harry Price, New York City (Harry Sommers, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellant., Lloyd C. Root, Chicago, 111. (Harry B. Rook, Newark, N. J., Richard L. Johnston, Daniel V. O’Keeffe, Marzall, Johnston, Cook & Root, Chicago, 111., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Waste Distillation Technology, Inc. v. Pan American Resources, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1991)
Bernardi Bros., Inc. v. Pride Manufacturing, Inc. (3d Cir. 1970)
Bernardi Bros. v. Pride Manufacturing, Inc. (3d Cir. 1970)
Chassis-Trak, Inc. v. Federated Purchaser, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court below granted a motion filed by Titus, an Iowa corporation, to quash the service as to it and dismissed Titus as a party defendant to the suit, entering judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C. The complaint alleged infringement of copyright laws and unfair competition. The action invoked the jurisdiction of the court below on the basis of diversity and under the copyright laws, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (c), 1332, and 1338 (1952). The court below, after a careful review of the record, found that Hutcheon’s status in its relationship to Titus was that of an independent contractor and that therefore Titus was not present in New Jersey in a sense that would support service of process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) *838 (1952); Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C., and Springs Cotton Mills v. Machinecraft, Inc., D.C.S.C.1957, 156 F. Supp. 372. See also Davega, Inc. v. Lincoln Furniture Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 1928, 29 F.2d 164. It appears clearly that Titus has not maintained the minimum contacts in New Jersey necessary to warrant the court below in assuming jurisdiction of the foreign corporation, Titus.

Finding no error in the judgment appealed from, it will be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.