Case Title: Branstrom & Assoc., Inc. v. Community Memorial Hosp.

Citation: 209 N.W.2d 389

Docket Number: 

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1973-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
209 N.W.2d 389 (1973) BRANSTROM & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Respondents. No. 43793. Supreme Court of Minnesota. June 15, 1973. *390 Rischmiller & Wasche and John E. Wasche, Minneapolis, for appellant. O'Brien, Doherty, Hoium & Lamm and Donald H. Lamm, Minneapolis, for respondents. Heard before KNUTSON, C. J., and OTIS, TODD, and MacLAUGHLIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court dismissing his cause of action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under the Minnesota "long-arm" statute.[1] We affirm. The facts are presented to this court by a statement of proceedings pursuant to Rule 110.03, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. This statement provides as follows: From the facts presented, we are faced with a situation where a Minnesota seller seeks to obtain jurisdiction in Minnesota over a nonresident buyer under the provisions of the Minnesota long-arm statute.[2] Service of process was made pursuant to Minn.St. 303.13, and the defendants make no objection to the manner of service but contend that the Minnesota court has no jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit. Our court in the case of Fourth Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. Hilson Industries, Inc. 264 Minn. 110, 117 N.W.2d 732 (1962), speaking through Mr. Justice Otis, traced the history of long-arm statutes in the United States and Minnesota. *392 In that case we distinguished the application of the statute as applied to the activities of nonresident sellers and tortfeasors on the one hand and nonresident buyers on the other. We quoted with approval the following language from Waltham Precision Instrument Co. v. McDonnell Aircraft Corp. 203 F. Supp. 539, 541 (D.Mass.1962): The facts of this case establish no basis for declining to apply the principles enunciated in Fourth Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, and accordingly we affirm. Affirmed. [1] It is doubtful that an order dismissing a cause of action without prejudice, granted upon motion of a defendant, is appealable under Rule 103.03, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. However, the order dismissing plaintiff's cause of action in the case at bar is final as to its right to bring this action in Minnesota and, in effect, is a dismissal with prejudice so far as plaintiff's rights in this state are concerned. We therefore elect to consider the matter under our discretionary powers of review. [2] Minn.St. 543.19.