Title: Bay Aviation Services Co. v. District Court

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

370 P.2d 752 (1962) BAY AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY d/b/a Oakland Air Motive Company, a corporation, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, and Katherine L. Curry, Respondents. No. 20108. Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc. March 19, 1962. Rehearing Denied April 30, 1962. Yegge, Hall & Shulenburg, Robert B. Yegge, Denver, for petitioner. Clell W. Hardee, George B. Lee, Aurora, for respondents. MOORE, Justice. This is an original proceeding in which the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as Bay Company, asserts that the respondent district court is proceeding to trial in an action there pending without jurisdiction over the person of the Bay Company, one of the defendants in that action. Plaintiff in the district court action, Katherine L. Curry, filed a motion in said action in which she alleged: Sub-paragraph 3 of C.R.S. '53, 31-35-19, as amended provides as follows: Pursuant to that motion an order was duly made by the district court, and purported service of the complaint and summons was made on the petitioner through the office of the secretary of state. Following that, petitioner herein filed a Motion to Vacate and to Quash, as follows: The Motion to Quash was supported by an affidavit which reads as follows: "Deponent being duly sworn, deposes and says: The motion filed by Bay Company was heard by the trial court. No evidence was taken, and no counter affidavit was filed challenging any facts asserted in the affidavit presented in support of the motion. The action filed in the district court by Mrs. Curry sought to recover damages allegedly resulting from the death of her husband who lost his life in an airplane accident in Colorado. It was alleged in the complaint that the Bay Company was the owner of the airplane involved in the action; that the agent of the company, one Bellamy, permitted one Donald W. Vest to operate the plane; that her husband was asked and invited to go on the flight; that said plane "was brought to the State of Colorado for the purpose of trial flights for prospective customers and said aircraft was under the control and possession of defendant's agent, Kenneth L. Bellamy." It was alleged that plaintiff's death was caused by the negligence of the agent of Bay Company. If under the above facts the Bay Company was "transacting business" in the state of Colorado the rule heretofore issued should be discharged. If, as a matter of law, the Bay Company was not "transacting business," under the undisputed facts, then the rule should be made absolute. In overruling the motion of the Bay Company the court said, inter alia: There are numerous cases in this jurisdiction and elsewhere dealing with the question of whether a foreign corporation is "doing business" in a state in which it has not qualified itself to operate. We direct attention to the opinions of this court in the following cases: Junior Frocks v. District Court, 105 Colo. 82, 94 P.2d 694; Begole Aircraft Supplies, Inc. v. Pacific Airmotive Corporation, 121 Colo. 88, 212 P.2d 860; Rogers v. Mountain States Royalties, Inc., 116 Colo. 455, 182 P.2d 142; Colorado Builders' Supply Co. v. Hinman Brothers Construction Company et al., 134 Colo. 383, 304 P.2d 892. A leading case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with the question before us is that of International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158, 90 L. Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057. It has often been cited with approval in opinions of this court. A case quite similar to that under consideration is that of McClelland v. Colt's *755 Patent Fire Arms Mfg. Co., 10 N.J.Misc. 156, 158 A. 329. The defendant in that case was a Connecticut corporation. One of its agents while demonstrating a new type of rapid fire rifle in the state of New Jersey accidentally caused the same to discharge, as a result of which McClelland lost the sight of one eye. The New Jersey court held that the demonstration of the gun, and other circumstances there considered, did not constitute "doing business" in the state of New Jersey. Upon full consideration of the cases above mentioned, we hold that under the undisputed facts presented in this case the Bay Company was not "transacting business" or "doing business" in Colorado, and the rule accordingly is made absolute.