People's Tobacco Co. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79 (1918). · Go Syfert
Search
People's Tobacco Co. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79 (1918). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the fact that the company owned stock in the local subsidiary companies did not bring it into the state in the sense of transacting its own business there.”
1,125 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 116 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Conti 11 v. MSC Mediterranean Shp (ca5, 2024-01-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1918 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1918 1972 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Conti 11 v. MSC Mediterranean Shp
5th Cir. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the fact that the company owned stock in the local subsidiary companies did not bring it into the state in the sense of transacting its own business there.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DP Creations, LLC v. Adolly.com (2×) also: Cited "see"
10th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 84 (1918) (construing the word “found” in Section 7 of the Sherman Act, now codified at 15 U.S.C. § 15 (a), to mean “present in the district by its officers and agents carrying on the business of the corporation”); Aro Mfg.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eli Lilly and Company v. Novartis Pharma AG
4th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
People’s Tobacco, 246 U.S. at 84 (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) I.A.M. National Pension Fund, Benefit Plan A v. Wakefield Industries, Incorporated
D.C. Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 84, 87 , 38 S.Ct. 233, 234-35 , 62 L.Ed. 587 (1918).
cited Cited as authority (rule) I.A.M. National Pension Fund, Benefit Plan A v. Wakefield Industries, Inc.
D.C. Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 84, 87 , 38 S.Ct. 233, 234-35 , 62 L.Ed. 587 (1918).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Consolidated Engineering Co. v. Southern Steel Co.
E.D. Va. · 1980 · confidence medium
Co., 205 U.S. 364 [ 27 S.Ct. 513 , 51 L.Ed. 841 ]; and People’s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 87 [ 38 S.Ct. 233, 235 , 62 L.Ed. 587, 590 ] Ann.Cas. 1918C, 537.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roorda v. VOLKSWAGENWERK, AG
D.S.C. · 1979 · confidence medium
Co., 205 U.S. 364 [ 27 S.Ct. 513 , 51 L.Ed. 841 ]; and People’s Tobacco Co., Ltd. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 87 [ 38 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed. 587 , Ann.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Buchhop v. General Growth Properties & General Growth Management Corp.
Iowa · 1975 · confidence medium
Our Mayer opinion, 234 Iowa at 1163 , 15 N.W.2d at 271 , approvingly quoted the definition of doing or transacting business found in People’s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 87 , 38 S.Ct. 233, 235 , 62 L.Ed. 587, 590 (1918): “[T]he business must be of such nature and character as to warrant the inference that the corporation has subjected itself to the local jurisdiction, and is by its duly authorized officers or agents present within the state or district where service is attempted.” This court held trial court was right in sustaining the special appearance filed by Dr…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Company
N.D. Tex. · 1973 · confidence medium
Co., 205 U.S. 364 [ 27 S.Ct. 513 , 51 L.Ed. 841 ]; and Peoples Tobacco Co., Ltd. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 87 [ 38 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed. 587 ].
cited Cited as authority (rule) Goldrick v. D. M. Picton Co.
E.D. Va. · 1971 · confidence medium
Co., 205 U.S. 364 [ 27 S.Ct. 513 , 51 L.Ed. 841 ]; and People’s Tobacco Co., Ltd. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 87 [, 38 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed. 587 ].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goldlawr, Incorporated v. Shubert
E.D. Pa. · 1958 · confidence medium
A corporation could thus be held to be transacting business, and venue established, “ — although not present by agents carrying on business of such character and in such manner that it is ‘found’ therein and is amenable to local process — if in fact, in the ordinary and usual sense, it ‘transacts business’ therein of any substantial character.” 5 To meet the test of “found” in the earlier venue provisions, People’s Tobacco Co., Ltd., v. American Tobacco Co., 1918, 246 U.S. 79, 84, 86 , 38 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed. 587 required the presence of agents carrying on business as des…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Banana Distributors, Inc. v. United Fruit Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 1957 · confidence medium
Thus, in Eastman Kodak Company of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Company, 1927, 273 U.S. 359 , 47 S.Ct. 400, 402 , the Supreme Court in discussing the original provision in Section 7 of the antitrust act which authorized suit “in the district in which the defendant ‘resides or is found’ ” stated: “* * * in Peoples Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 84, 86 , 38 S.Ct. 233, 234 , 62 L.Ed. 587 * * * decided in 1918, it was held that this provision, as applied to a corporation sued in a district in which it did not reside, required that it ‘be present in the distric…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Klein v. Sunbeam Corp.
Del. Super. Ct. · 1951 · confidence medium
Peoples Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79, 87, 38 S. Ct. 233 , 62 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Winkler-Koch Engineering Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co. (Delaware)
S.D.N.Y. · 1946 · confidence medium
A corporation may be said to be “found” in a district when it is there present by its officers and agent carrying on the business of the corporation and doing business therein “of such nature and character as to warrant the inference that the corporation has subjected itself to the local jurisdiction, and is by its duly authorized officers or agents present within the district where service is attempted.” Peoples Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 84, 87 , 38 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed. 587 , Ann.Cas.1918C, 537.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Aluminum Co. of America
S.D.N.Y. · 1937 · confidence medium
In that manner it may manifest its submission to local jurisdiction and become amenable to local process.” And the court explained at page 87 of 246 U.S., 38 S. Ct. 233, 235, 62 L.Ed. 587 , Ann.Cas.1918C, 537, that:* “Each case depends upon its own facts.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Creager v. P. F. Collier & Son Co.
S.D. Tex. · 1929 · confidence medium
Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79, 84, 86 , 38 S. Ct. 233, 234 , 62 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) La Porte Heinekamp Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co.
D. Maryland · 1928 · confidence medium
“The general rule deducible from all our decisions,” says the Supreme Court in People’s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79, 87 , 38 S. Ct. 233, 235 ( 62 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Selbert v. Lancaster Chocolate & Caramel Co.
6th Cir. · 1928 · confidence medium
Ed. 841 ], and People’s Tobacco Co., Ltd., v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79, 87 [ 38 S. Ct. 233 , 62 L.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zimmers v. Dodge Brothers
N.D. Ill. · 1927 · confidence medium
People’s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79, 84, 86 , 38 S. Ct. 233 , 62 L.
examined Cited "see" Holt v. Klosters Rederi A/S (3×)
W.D. Mich. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See People’s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79 , 38 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed. 587 (1918).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Scophony Corp. of America (2×)
SCOTUS · 1948 · signal: see · confidence high
We do not stop to review the decisions construing § 7 and similar statutes, cf. Suttle v. Reich Bros., 333 U.S. 163 ; see International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 317-319 , except to refer to People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79 .
examined Cited "see" Stein v. Standard Oil Co. of California (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1929 · signal: see · confidence high
See People’s Tobacco Co., Ltd., v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79 , 38 S. Ct. 233 , 62 L.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lucy Villagomez, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Ismael Villagomez, and Francisco Villagomez and Maria Vilagomez v. Rockwood Specialties, Inc.
Tex. App. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See , e.g ., People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co. , 246 U.S. 79, 86-87 (1918).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Villagomez v. Rockwood Specialties, Inc. (6×)
Tex. App. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79, 86-87 , 38 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed. 587 (1918).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Scott v. Middle East Airlines Co., SA (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1965 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e. g., People’s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U.S. 79 , 38 S.Ct. 233 , 62 L.Ed. 587 (1918) (suit brought under the Sherman Act); Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U.S. 100, 111 , 18 S.Ct. 526 , 42 L.Ed. 964 (1898); Arrowsmith v. United Press Int’l, 320 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1963) (diversity jurisdiction); Arpad Szabo v. Smedvig Tankrederi, S. A., 95 F.Supp. 519 (S.D.N.Y.1951) (suit in admiralty under Jones Act); Paragon Oil Co. v. Panama Refining & Petrochemical Co., 192 F.Supp. 259 (S.D.N.Y.1961).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
People’s Tobacco Company, Limited,
v.
American Tobacco Company
124.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 4, 1918.
246 U.S. 79
Mr. Edwin T. Merrick, with whom Mr. Ralph J. Schwarz was on the brief, for plaintiff in error:, Mr. Junius Parker and Mr. George Denegre, with whom Mr. Victor Leovy and Mr. Henry H. Chaffe were on the brief, for defendant in error.
Day, McReynolds.
Cited by 380 opinions  |  Published
[*83] Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the court.

On January 4, 1912, the People’s Tobacco Company, Limited, began' suit against the American Tobacco Company in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana to recover treble damages under § 7 of the Sherman Act of 1890. On January 5, 1912, service of process was made upon W. R. Irby as manager of the company. On January 16,1912, the company filed exceptions to the service on the ground that it was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey; that it was not found within the Eastern District of Louisiana or in the State of Louisiana, and was not engaged in business there, nor had it an agent therein; that W. R.Trby, upon whom service had been attempted, was not an officer, agent, or employee of the defendant, the American Tobacco Company, or authorized to accept service of process upon it at that time. On January 25, 1912, service was made upon the Assistant Secretary of State of Louisiana. Exceptions to that service upon practically the same grounds were filed by the defendant, company, A further service was undertaken on February 2,1914, on the Secretary of State of Louisiana and .like exceptions were filed by the defendant company to that service.

Testimony was taken and upon hearing the’District Court held that:

1. W. R. Irby was not the agent of the company at the time of the attempted service, and, therefore, the service upon him did not bring the company into court; •

2. That the American Tobacco Company was not doing business in Louisiana at the time of the attempted service; -

3. That the attempted sérvice upon the Secretary of State of Louisiana did not bring the defendant corporation into court.

[*84] Section 7 of the Sherman Act provides that suits of the character of the one now under consideration may be brought in the district in which the defendant “ resides or is found.” When applied to a corporation this requirement is the equivalent of saying that it must be present in the district by its officers and agents carrying on the business of the corporation. In this way only can a corporation be said to be “found” within the district. In that manner it may manifest its submission to. local jurisdiction and become amenable to local process.

, The testimony shows that up to November 30, 1911, the American Tobacco Company had a factory in New Orleans for the manufacture of tobacco and cigarettes known as the W. It. Irby Branch of the American Tobacco Company, of which W. R. Irby was manager. Under the law of the State it had filed in the office of the Secretary of State an appointment of W. R. Irby as agent, upon whom service of process might be made. *

On November 16, 1911, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York made a decree dissolving the American Tobacco Company. Among other things that decree provided that the American Tobacco Company should convey its W. R. Irby Branch to a company to be formed and known as the Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company. Conveyances were made to carry out this purpose.

The American Tobacco Company by an instrument executed by Mr. Hill, its vice president, revoked the authority of W. R. Irby as its resident agent,' and filed the revocation of authority in the office of the Secretary of State of Louisiana on December 15, 1911. W. R. Irby testified that thereafter he was the manager of the Lig-gett and Myers Tobacco Company, and that he had no connection whatsoever with the- American Tobacco Company, nor had he drawn any salary from that company since December 1, 1911.

[*85] It is true that the record discloses some instances in which collections were made upon bills in the name of the Irby Branch of the American Tobacco Company after the revocation of Mr. Irby’s authority as its agent. Most of them were stamped across the face, Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company.

There remained on hand with the Irby Branch at the time of the dissolution a quantity of cigarette paper which was continued to be delivered to purchasers by the employees of the Irby Branch of the Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company upon orders received from the American Tobacco Company, and for its benefit and upon its account. This practically continued until the stock was exhausted, which the testimony shows was within a month after the dissolution, and before the attempted service of process in this case.

There were lodged in the custom house in New Orleans powers of attorney of the American Tobacco Company giving authority to those named therein to do what was necessary to make out export papers on behalf of the company. These powers of attorney do not appear to have been revoked, and existed after the service of process. The defendant company issued circulars subsequent to the time it was served with process in this suit, it also advertised in the New Orleans newspapers.

A consideration of all the testimony leads us to the conclusion that the American Tobacco Company undertook in good faith to carry out the decree of dissolution, and to take that company out of business in the State of Louisiana. It is true, as found by the District Court, that at the time of the service, and thereafter, the American Tobacco Company was selling goods in Louisiana to jobbers, and sending its drummers into that State to solicit orders of the retail trade, to be turned over to the jobbers, the charges being made by the jobbers to the retailers. It further appears that these agents were not[*86] domiciled in the State, and did not have the right or authority to make sales on account of the defendant company, collect money, or extend credit for it. It also appears that the American Tobacco Company owned stock in other companies which owned stock in companies carrying on the tobacco business in the State of Louisiana. With these facts in mind we come to a consideration of the proper disposition of the case..

We agree with the District Court that Irby at the time of the attempted service, upon him was not the authorized agent of the American Tobacco Company. On December 1, 1911, the American Tobacco Company conveyed its Irby Branch to the Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company. On the same day W. R. Irby, who had been the designated agent of the defendant company, resigned as a director of the American Tobacco Company, and ceased to remain in its employment. On December 15, 1911, the power of attorney was revoked, as we have hereinbefore stated, by the company filing an instrument of revocation in the office of the Secretary of State of Louisiana; it is true that the revocation was by one of the vice presidents of the company and was attested by the seal of the corporation. But we are not impressed with the argument that this revocation was ineffectual because not sanctioned, by formal action of the board of directors of the company. The vice president seems to have had authority in the matter. Apparently he acted with the knowledge and acquiescence of the corporation, and was carrying into effect the decree of dissolution.

Upon the broader question, we agree with the District Court that the American Tobacco Company at the time of the attempted service was not doing business within the State of Louisiana. The question as to what constitutes the doing of business in such wise as to make the corporation subject to service of process has been frequently discussed in the opinions of this court, and we[*87] shall enter upon no amplification of what has been said. Each case depends upon its own facts. The general rule deducible from all our decisions is that the business must be of such nature and character as to warrant the inference that the corporation has subjected itself to the local jurisdiction, and is by its duly authorized officers or agents present within the State or district where service is attempted. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 227 U. S. 218, 226.

The fact that the company owned stock in the local subsidiary companies did not bring it into the State in the sense of transacting its own business there. Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 364; Philadelphia & Reading Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 268. As to the continued practice of . advertising its wares in Louisiana, and sending its soliciting agents into that State, as above'detailed, the agents having no authority beyond solicitation, we think the previous decisions of this court have settled the law to be that such practices did not amount to that doing of business which subjects the corporation to the local jurisdiction for the purpose of service of process upon it. Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 530; Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U. S. 264, 268.

The plaintiff in error relies upon International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579, but in that case the facts disclosed that there was not only a continuous course of business in the solicitation of orders within the State, but there was also authority upon the part of such agents to receive payment in money, checks and drafts on behalf of the company, and to take notes payable, and collectible at banks in Kentucky; these things, taken together, we held amounted, to doing business within the State of Kentucky in such manner as to make the Har[*88] vester Company amenable to the process of the courts of that State.

As to the attempted service of process upon the Secretary of State of Louisiana under the Louisiana Act of 1904 [Laws 1904, Act No. 54, p. 133], as amended 1908, [Laws 1908, Act No. 284, p. 423], we understand the act, as construed by the State Supreme Court, is not applicable to foreign corporations not present within the State and doing business therein at the time of the seryice, and having as in this case; withdrawn from the State and ceased to do, business there. Gouner v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co., 123 Louisiana, 964.

We reach the conclusion that the District Court did not err in maintaining the exceptions filed by the defendant company and in quashing the attempted service made upon it.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice McReynolds took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.