Summary
In Phillips v. Knapp-Monarch Co., 245 S.C. 383, 140 S.E.2d 786, plaintiff was injured when an appliance for brewing coffee, manufactured by the defendant, allegedly exploded.
Summary of this case from Triplett v. R.M. Wade Co.Opinion
18312
March 1, 1965.
Clement L. McEachern, Esq., of Greenville, for Appellant, cites: As to error on part of trial Judge in holding that the Defendant is not amenable to service of process in the State of South Carolina on the ground that it does not transact business in the State of South Carolina: 237 S.C. 54, 115 S.E.2d 508; 304 F.2d 106; 208 S.C. 379, 38 S.E.2d 242; 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057; 339 U.S. 643, 70 S.Ct. 927, 94 L.Ed. 1154; 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485; 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223; 232 S.C. 433, 102 S.E.2d 743; 239 F.2d 502; 166 F.2d 788; 116 Vt. 569, 80 A.2d 664, 25 A.L.R.2d 1193; 248 F. Supp. 3. As to error on part of trial Judge in holding that the Defendant is not amenable to service of process in the State of South Carolina on the ground that it has no offices or agencies in the State of South Carolina: 304 F.2d 106; 237 S.C. 54, 115 S.E.2d 508. As to Respondent being subject to service of process within the State, regardless of whether it was domesticated in the State or not: 200 S.C. 393, 21 S.E.2d 34; 208 S.C. 379, 38 S.E.2d 242.
Messrs. Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion Johnstone, of Greenville, for Respondent, cite: As to trial Judge properly holding that the Defendant was not transacting business in the State of South Carolina so as to be amenable to service under Section 10-424 of the 1962 Code of Laws of South Carolina: 172 S.C. 415, 174 S.E. 385; 188 S.C. 367, 199 S.E. 420; 215 F. Supp. 619; 156 F. Supp. 372; 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95; 167 F. Supp. 1.
March 1, 1965.
Plaintiff was injured when an appliance for brewing coffee, manufactured by the defendant, a foreign corporation, allegedly exploded. Invoking the provisions of Section 10-424, Code of 1962, plaintiff attempted service of a summons and complaint on the defendant through the office of the Secretary of State. This Code section permits constructive service by this means upon a foreign corporation under certain conditions, among them, "if such foreign corporation transacts business in this State." The circuit court, upon finding that the defendant had no agents and transacted no business in South Carolina, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the action and plaintiff has appealed. The judgment of the circuit court is supported by all of the evidence on the point and must be sustained. The defendant made no sales in South Carolina and had no agents here. The fact, alone, that products manufactured by the defendant and bearing its trade name passed through the channels of trade into South Carolina and were here resold by independent merchants, did not constitute the transaction of business by the defendant in this State. Therefore, the statute invoked by the plaintiff did not authorize the service which was attempted and the action was properly dismissed.
Affirmed.
TAYLOR, C.J., and MOSS, LEWIS and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.