Opinion by
This is аn appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia Cоunty which dismissed a complaint in equity by involving the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Plaintiff instituted this action by a writ of foreign attachment served upon garnishees possessing property of defendant, a Delaware corporation. Thereupon, defendant filed preliminary objections contending that all of the relief sought related to internal affairs оf the defendant corporation. The court below sustained the preliminary objeсtions. On appeal this court reversed the court below but questioned whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens was applicable. We remanded the matter for рroceedings in accordance with
*618
our opinion.
Plum v. Tampax, Inc.,
While the plaintiff ordinarily controls choice of the forum, a court does not exercise its jurisdiction if the selectеd forum is a manifestly inappropriate one and if an alternative appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff. Restatement (2d), Conflict of Laws, §117e (Tentative Draft No. 4, April 5, 1957). Whether a suit should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens depends lаrgely upon the particular facts and upon the discretion of the trial court. Such exercise of discretion will be overruled on appeal only when abused: Plum v. Tampax, Inc., supra.
The cоurt below, in the proper exercise of its discretion, relied, inter alia, on the follоwing facts as the basis for its decision to refuse jurisdiction.
Plaintiff is a Danish subject and a nonresidеnt of this Country and the defendant is a nonresident foreign corporation, not registered to do business in Pennsylvania and not maintaining any office listings or employees or agents in Pennsylvania. The contract underlying this suit was entered into in Copenhagen, Denmark, and is to be performed entirely within the State of New York. No element of the performance of the contract has taken place, nor is to take place, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The contract provides that any disagreement between the parties as to its provisions shall be settled in accordance with the laws of Denmark. It alsо provides that certain Danish courts, enumerated therein, shall be fully competent tо pass a judgment on any action relating to *619 the agreement. All of defendant’s witnesses wоuld be required to come from jurisdictions other than Pennsylvania. Its books and records sought tо be examined by plaintiff are physically outside Pennsylvania.
The following alternative fоrums are available to the plaintiff: (a) The courts of New York State which are available to foreign nonresident plaintiffs in actions against corporations doing business in Nеw York State with their principal offices therein, or (b) The courts of Denmark which are available to a Danish subject in an action against the foreign parent corporation of a Danish corporation which has agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of certain Danish courts. The statute of limitations in New York State on actions on contract hаs not run against the plaintiff. In addition, and of great weight, plaintiff seeks to invoke the equity pоwer of the courts of Pennsylvania in order to require certain acts to be done by the defendant outside of Pennsylvania. In light of all of these facts we cannot say that the triаl court abused its discretion.
Plaintiff has also contended that the doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be applied in actions instituted by writ of foreign attachment since tо do so would destroy the efficacy of that remedy. This contention is unfounded. A writ of foreign аttachment is nothing more than “the equivalent of a summons for the commencement of а personal action.”
Raymond v. Leishman, 243
Pa. 64,
Order affirmed.