From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swavely v. Vandegrift

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 21, 1959
154 A.2d 779 (Pa. 1959)

Summary

In Swavely v. Vandegrift, 397 Pa. 281, 154 A.2d 779 (1959), the court held that the shipment of goods into Pennsylvania by a foreign corporation was not sufficient basis for jurisdiction and this holding was reluctantly followed in Cecere v. Ohringer Home Furniture Company, 208 Pa. Super. 138, 220 A.2d 350 (1966).

Summary of this case from Carl v. Positive Safety Manufacturing Co.

Opinion

May 5, 1959.

October 21, 1959.

Before JONES, C. J., BELL, MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN and McBRIDE, JJ.

Appeal, No. 85, Jan. T., 1959, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Sept. T., 1955, No. 123, in case of Harry Swavely et ux. v. Arthur Vandegrift et al. Order affirmed.

Same case in court below: 19 Pa. D. C.2d 153.

Trespass for property damage.

Adjudication filed sustaining defendant's, Calcinator Corporation, preliminary objections, and order entered, opinion by SATTERTHWAITE, J. Defendants appealed.

Bernard J. Smolens, with him John J. McDevitt, 3rd, for appellants.

William H. Lowery, with him Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers Rhoads, for appellee.


The opinion of Judge SATTERTHWAITE clearly sets forth at great length the facts and ably analyzes the law.

The Order of the lower court which sustained the preliminary objections of Calcinator Corporation and set aside service of process and dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint against said corporation is affirmed at appellants' costs.


Summaries of

Swavely v. Vandegrift

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 21, 1959
154 A.2d 779 (Pa. 1959)

In Swavely v. Vandegrift, 397 Pa. 281, 154 A.2d 779 (1959), the court held that the shipment of goods into Pennsylvania by a foreign corporation was not sufficient basis for jurisdiction and this holding was reluctantly followed in Cecere v. Ohringer Home Furniture Company, 208 Pa. Super. 138, 220 A.2d 350 (1966).

Summary of this case from Carl v. Positive Safety Manufacturing Co.

In Swavely, the sales representatives', who were not full time salaried employees, activities were limited to making recommendations of prospective distributors, and they neither solicited business nor engaged in the other activities which are present in the case at bar.

Summary of this case from Rufo v. Bastian-Blessing Co.

In Swavely v. Vandegrift, 397 Pa. 281, 154 A.2d 779 (1959), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order of the court below, reported at 19 Pa. D. C. 2d 153 (1958).

Summary of this case from Cecere v. Ohringer H. Fur. Co.

In Swavely, Calcinator Corporation, a Michigan corporation, marketed its products through distributors in Pennsylvania who were separate and independent from the corporation and were engaged in the distribution of the products of other companies.

Summary of this case from Cecere v. Ohringer H. Fur. Co.
Case details for

Swavely v. Vandegrift

Case Details

Full title:Swavely v. Vandegrift (et al., Appellants)

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 21, 1959

Citations

154 A.2d 779 (Pa. 1959)
154 A.2d 779

Citing Cases

Image Ten, Inc. v. W. Reade Org., Inc.

' " Act of May 5, 1933, P. L. 364, art. X, § 1011(C), as amended,15 Pa.C.S.A. § 2011(C) (emphasis added). The…

Wilson v. Institute for Business Planning, Inc.

Payments are made directly to the New York Office. Withholding taxes and social security payments are made in…