Opinion ID: 282026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substituted Service on the Secretary of the Commonwealth, July 5, 1963

Text: 7 Section 1011, subd. B of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation law of 1933, 15 P.S. 2852-1011, subd. B, authorizes the Secretary of the Commonwealth to accept substituted service of process for 'any foreign business corporation which shall have done any business in this Commonwealth, without procuring a certificate of authority to do so from the Department of State.' However, on July 5, 1963, when the administrator's attempt was made, the availability of such service was severely restricted in that the statute allowed substituted service only in an 'action arising out of acts or omissions of such corporation within this Commonwealth.' 3 (An amendment to the statute, which became effective August 13, 1963, omitted the 'acts or omissions' requirement and prescribed substituted service as now authorized 'in any action arising within this Commonwealth,' 4 but, as we shall discuss, such amendment is inapplicable to the case at bar.) 8 The Pennsylvania court in Myers, as well as the district court below, found affirmatively that Mooney, which had obtained no certificate of authority from the Department of State, was 'doing business' as that term was used in Section 1011, subd. B and defined in Section 1011, subd. C. 5 Mooney does not contest this finding on appeal. Instead, it stresses that none of the 'acts or omissions' which precipitated this suit occurred in Pennsylvania and, therefore, that the substituted service on July 5, 1963, was void for lack of statutory authority. The district court below accepted Mooney's defense, relying on Rufo v. Bastian-Blessing Company, 1961, 405 Pa. 12, 173 A.2d 123, in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held: 9 'The question is not where the injury occurred or where the cause of action arose; where did the company's negligent acts or omissions take place?' 173 A.2d at 127. 10 See also Frisch v. Alexson Equipment Corp., 1966, 423 Pa. 247, 224 A.2d 183, 187. 11 In Myers the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acknowledged the Rufo holding as the law before August 13, 1963 (see 240 A.2d at 508 n. 5) even though it ruled that service after that date would be judged by the more pervasive amendment. In the case at bar no service was attempted after August 13, 1963, and so the Myers refinement is inapplicable. We thus affirm that portion of the district court's opinion which denied the validity of the July 5 substituted service. 12