Title: Aero Spray, Incorporated v. Ace Flying Service, Inc.

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

338 P.2d 275 (1959) AERO SPRAY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff in Error, v. ACE FLYING SERVICE, INC., Defendant in Error. No. 18861. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. April 13, 1959. Rehearing Denied May 11, 1959. Jones & Meiklejohn, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Cristiano & Bugdanowitz, Denver, for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice. The parties appear in this court in the same order as in the district court and we will refer to them as they there appeared, namely, plaintiff in error as plaintiff and defendant in error as defendant. Plaintiff is a Washington corporation and defendant is an Oregon corporation. Neither is authorized to do business in the State of Colorado. The complaint in the trial court contains allegations of the corporate existence of the parties, and that: An affidavit in attachment filed in said action contains, inter alia, the following: "3. That the nature of said indebtedness is for goods sold and delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, on open account. Prior to July 11, 1958, Plaintiff had sold said merchandise to the Defendant in the total amount of Twenty One Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-Five Dollars and Seventynine Cents ($21,395.79). Defendant paid the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) to the Plaintiff on July 11, 1958, leaving a balance due and payable on said account in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Three *276 Hundred Ninety-Five Dollars and Seventy-nine Cents ($16,395.79). The State of Colorado was, and is, indebted to defendant in the sum of $16,286.32. Writ of attachment and garnishee summons in aid thereof was served upon E. G. Spurlin, the state controller, who made answer acknowledging the indebtedness in the total sum above mentioned. The trial court ordered publication and mailing of notice of levy, and, pursuant thereto, service thereof was made upon defendant. Defendant filed a motion entitled "Special Appearance and Motion to Quash Return of Service and to Quash and Dissolve Writ of Attachment and Writ of Garnishment." This motion alleged that the parties to the action were foreign corporations, neither of which was authorized to do business in Colorado; and further that: Upon hearing of this motion the trial court entered the following judgment: Plaintiff brings the cause here for review by writ of error. The facts pertinent to the questions argued by counsel are admitted to be as follows: 1. A foreign corporation not authorized to do business in Colorado is the plaintiff. 2. A foreign corporation not authorized to do business in Colorado is the defendant. 3. The claim of plaintiff did not arise in Colorado and no performance on the part of either party was required in this state. 4. The State of Colorado is indebted to defendant and has been regularly served as garnishee in attachment proceedings. 5. Service of notice of levy on defendant has been made by publication. To sustain the judgment of the trial court it is argued by counsel for defendant in error as follows: The argument of plaintiff for reversal of the judgment is: 1. Foreign corporations can avail themselves of the remedies of attachment and garnishment under the laws and statutes of Colorado. 2. A debt is present within the state for attachment and garnishment purposes whenever the garnishee debtor is present within the state. 3. Plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed by application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens since the instant case is a transitory contract action and there is substantial contact with the state of the forum. Questions to be Determined First: Can a foreign corporation plaintiff, not qualified to do business in Colorado, proceed in attachment and garnishment in this state and thereby subject personal property, in the form of a chose in action due from a resident to defendant, to payment of a debt which has a foreign origin and which is owing by the foreign corporate defendant to the said plaintiff? This question is answered in the affirmative. Rule 102(a) R.C.P.Colo., provides in pertinent part: One of the grounds upon which the writ of attachment may issue is, "That the defendant is a foreign corporation." At no place in the various subsections of the rule governing attachment procedures is there any provision which excludes foreign corporations from the right to make use of the remedies of attachment and garnishment. The rule itself provides the answer and we are not concerned with opinions from courts in other jurisdictions which interpret attachment statutes or rules that are different from our own. A well-considered case in point is that of Standard Oil Company v. Superior Court, 5 Terry 538, 44 Del. 538, 62 A.2d 454. That case is also reported in 14 A.L.R.2d 405, and is followed by an exhaustive annotation. From a study of the cases there cited we are convinced that the rule, applicable to cases where the statute or rule governing attachment is in general terms, is that which authorizes foreign corporations to attach in any jurisdiction in which they find assets of their debtors. Second: Did the trial court err in adjudging "that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed * * *" even though the motion of defendant raised only the question of the sufficiency of service of a notice of levy and did not seek a dismissal of the complaint, but only a discharge of the writ of attachment? This question is answered in the affirmative. By dismissing the action the trial court granted relief to the defendant, which was not asked for in its motion. In Fletcher v. District Court, 137 Colo. 143, 322 P.2d 96, 97, we used this pertinent language: So in the case at bar, the foreign corporation plaintiff having a right to bring an action in Colorado cannot have the action dismissed because of an alleged improper service of process or notice of levy under a writ of attachment issued in the action. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. SUTTON and DOYLE, JJ., not participating.