Case Name: BROWN v. CLEVELAND TRACTOR CO.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1933-12-19
Citations: 265 Mich. 475
Docket Number: Docket No. 69, Calendar No. 37,294
Parties: BROWN v. CLEVELAND TRACTOR CO.
Judges: McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Btjtzbl, JJ., concurred with Fead, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 265
Pages: 475–481

Head Matter:
BROWN v. CLEVELAND TRACTOR CO.
1. Statutes — Construction—Motor Vehicles — Process—Substituted Service.
Statute providing for substituted service of process against nonresident owners and operators of motor vehicles being in derogation of common right, must be strictly construed and cannot be extended to include persons not within its terms (1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 4790).
2. Motor Vehicles — Corporations—Process—Substituted Service.
Nonresident foreign corporation, which hired a tractor service mechanic to travel in this and other states and paid him seven cents a mile as expense money when using his own ear, was not operator of said car so that substituted service might be had upon it in action by plaintiff for injuries sustained as result of collision with said ear in this State (1 Comp. Laws 1929, §4790).
3. CORPORATIONS' — PROCESS-SERVICE ON LOCAL DEALER.
Poreign corporation’s local dealer who bought tractors from it but who established no legal relation between his customer and corporation, although he called upon latter to service the tractors he sold, was not its agent for service of process under 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14094, providing for service upon corporation’s agent “representing such corporation in any capacity.”
Weadock, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Delta; Bell (Prank A.), J.
Submitted October 6, 1933.
(Docket No. 69, Calendar No. 37,294.)
Decided December 19, 1933.
Case by William Brown against Cleveland Tractor Company, an Ohio corporation, and another for damages alleged to be dne to defendants ’ negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle. On motion to dismiss by defendant corporation. Prom order for plaintiff, defendant corporation appeals.
Reversed.
Yelland & Yelland, for plaintiff.
Thomas J. Rushton, H. J. Rushton and Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie, for defendant corporation.

Opinion:
Weadock, J.
(dissenting). The plaintiff and appellee began a suit by summons against defendant and appellant, Cleveland Tractor Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, a corporation which was selling tractors for road work in Michigan, having a "distributor" in Michigan.
It employed Charles II. Wilt as a "traveling service supervisor calling on distributors to instruct the distributors' organization in the service and maintaining of tractors" and he carried cards, as the defendant knew, showing he was "a service representative of the Cleveland Tractor Company."
Plaintiff's suit was for personal injury to himself and also injury to his automobile caused by Wilt who was driving his own car for the use of which defendant paid him in the service of the company, in discharge of his duties.
Wilt was operating a car of defendant as aforesaid and in its service in Alger county, on a public highway. The summons was served on defendant pursuant to 1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 4790, by service on the secretary of State and was also served on Marcus S. McNabb, who defendant calls its "distributor," and provides in its written contract with him that:
"Nothing herein shall be construed as constituting the distributor the agent or the legal representative of the company."
The defendant appeared specially by attorneys and moved to dismiss the suit because there was no legal service of process.
After due hearing the circuit court denied the motion and .defendant appealed. This court in Huckle v. Mt. Forest Rabbitries, 253 Mich. 441, 443, cited the statute that "any person representing such (foreign) corporation in any capacity shall be deemed an agent within the meaning of this section." 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14094.
The decision of the circuit court should be affirmed, with costs.