167 A. 558 | N.H. | 1933
In this action against a foreign corporation, the issue presented is whether the defendant was or had been doing business in this state to such an extent that the state has jurisdiction over it in a suit growing out of the business. The question is one of *311 federal law. The defendant invokes the protection of the federal constitution, and the problem presented is the extent of that protection as defined and applied by the federal court.
It is conceded by every one that a foreign corporation which goes into a state and there does business in an extensive way thereby submits itself to the jurisdiction. In the language of the cases there must be something of "a continuous course of business." International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky,
It has been determined that the mere solicitation of orders within the state does not bring the corporation within the jurisdiction. People's Tobacco Company v. Company,
These two facts — solicitation of orders and a visit for negotiation as to a dispute — are all that appear in the present case. As the federal rule is that these alone are not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the state court, the motion to dismiss the action should have been. granted.
Exception sustained.
WOODBURY, J. did not sit: the others concurred. *312