From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. Twin City So. Bus Co. v. Dist. Court

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jun 21, 1929
225 N.W. 915 (Minn. 1929)

Summary

In State ex rel. Twin City Southern Bus Co. v. District Court, 178 Minn. 72, 225 N.W. 915, it was held that 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 9214, must be so construed as to accord the same treatment to a foreign corporation in the matter of change of venue as is accorded a domestic corporation.

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Aetna L. Ins. v. Janesville State Bank

Opinion

No. 27,579.

June 21, 1929.

Change of venue as to foreign corporations — cases overruled.

The venue statute as to foreign corporations [G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 9214] must be construed so as to place such corporations within the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution, as held in Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490, 47 S.Ct. 678, 71 L.ed. 1165. Olson v. Osborne Co. 30 Minn. 444, 15 N.W. 876, and Eickhoff v. Fidelity Casualty Co. 74 Minn. 139, 76 N.W. 1030, being in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, are overruled.

Order to show cause upon the relation of Twin City Southern Bus Company directed to the district court for Otter Tail county and the judges and clerk thereof why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue directing the transfer of the files from Otter Tail to Hennepin county in an action for personal injuries instituted by one Elmer A. Arneson against relator. Writ issued.

Cobb, Hoke, Benson, Krause Faegre, for relator.

Roger L. Dell, for respondents.



Order to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue directing a transfer of the files and records of the cause from the district court of Otter Tail county to Hennepin.

From the petition and the return it appears that defendant is a foreign corporation authorized to and doing business in this state, having the main and head office in Minneapolis, and having no office, agent, place of business, bus or bus line in the county of Otter Tail; that plaintiff's cause of action is predicated upon a collision with defendant's bus in the state of Wisconsin; and that defendant's officers, agents, books and records are in Hennepin county, making it a matter of considerable inconvenience for defendant to try the action in Otter Tail county. The district court denied a motion to transfer the cause from the last named county to the county of Hennepin, defendant having previously made a demand for such change under G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 9215.

Plaintiff laid the venue in Otter Tail county, relying upon this provision found in G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 9214, relating to venue:

"If none of the parties shall reside or be found in the state, or the defendant be a foreign corporation, the action may be begun and tried in any county which the plaintiff shall designate. A domestic corporation other than railroad companies, street railway companies * * * shall be considered as residing in any county wherein it has an office, resident agent or business place."

Defendant cannot be brought within the concluding sentence of the section as properly suable in Otter Tail county, for its transportation line does not reach that county.

Olson v. Osborne Co. 30 Minn. 444, 15 N.W. 876, and Eickhoff v. Fidelity Casualty Co. 74 Minn. 139, 76 N.W. 1030, determined that, under the provision cited, a plaintiff may select the venue in a transitory action against a foreign corporation and retain it there for trial except there be a change directed under G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 9216. We are now persuaded that the part of the statute relating to foreign corporations as construed in the cases cited offends the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, in that it unreasonably discriminates against foreign corporations in favor of domestic, according to Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490, 47 S.Ct. 678, 71 L. ed. 1165. The statute of Arkansas, there involved, was virtually the same as ours and was given the same effect by the supreme court of that state as in our decisions mentioned. They must therefore be considered as overruled and an interpretation placed upon the whole of said § 9214 which entitles a foreign corporation, sued in this state upon a transitory cause of action in a county where it has no office, resident agent, or place of business, to have it removed under the provisions of § 9215 to a county where "it has an office, resident agent or place of business," thus according it the same treatment as to venue as a domestic corporation. This result is foreshadowed in State ex rel. Oakland M. C. Co. v. District Court, 176 Minn. 78, 222 N.W. 524.

Let a peremptory writ of mandamus issue as prayed.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. Twin City So. Bus Co. v. Dist. Court

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jun 21, 1929
225 N.W. 915 (Minn. 1929)

In State ex rel. Twin City Southern Bus Co. v. District Court, 178 Minn. 72, 225 N.W. 915, it was held that 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 9214, must be so construed as to accord the same treatment to a foreign corporation in the matter of change of venue as is accorded a domestic corporation.

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Aetna L. Ins. v. Janesville State Bank
Case details for

State ex Rel. Twin City So. Bus Co. v. Dist. Court

Case Details

Full title:STATE EX REL. TWIN CITY SOUTHERN BUS COMPANY v. DISTRICT COURT OF OTTER…

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Jun 21, 1929

Citations

225 N.W. 915 (Minn. 1929)
225 N.W. 915

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. Aetna L. Ins. v. Janesville State Bank

It is the contention of the insurance company that the service and filing of the affidavit and demand for…

Smith v. Utah Home Fire Insurance Co.

1. In State ex rel. Twin City So. Bus Co. v. District Court, 178 Minn. 72, 225 N.W. 915, we overruled…