Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Borges Dusters, Inc. v. Southmost Aviation, Inc.
Citations: 152 Cal. App. 2d 25; 312 P.2d 712; 1957 Cal. App. LEXIS 1843Docket: Civ. 5443
Court: California Court of Appeal; June 20, 1957; California; State Appellate Court
Borges Dusters, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Southmost Aviation, Inc. for damages to an aircraft, claiming that on April 8, 1954, an agent of Southmost Aviation negligently caused a collision with Borges Dusters' aircraft at Calexico Airport, resulting in damages of $1,029.10. Southmost Aviation, a Texas corporation, was accused of conducting business in California. The trial court allowed service of the summons and complaint to be delivered to the California Secretary of State. Southmost Aviation subsequently filed a special appearance to contest the service, asserting that it had never done business in California. The court granted this motion, setting aside the service of summons. Borges Dusters appealed this ruling, arguing there was no basis for the court's decision. However, the appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling, stating that the evidence supporting the order must be presumed sufficient due to the limited scope of review on appeal, which only considers errors on the judgment roll. The burden was on Borges Dusters to demonstrate that Southmost Aviation was indeed conducting business in California at the time of the incident. The appellate court emphasized that findings should be interpreted liberally to support the judgment. A foreign corporation must be "doing business" in the jurisdiction where service of process is made for the service to be valid under the federal Constitution. In cases where a foreign corporation's service of process is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate that the corporation was doing business in the state. In this instance, the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence, such as affidavits, to support their claim and relied solely on unsubstantiated allegations. The court's order, which vacated the service of summons and complaint, was affirmed after a hearing where the plaintiff's attorney only presented oral arguments without evidentiary support. Judges Barnard and Griffin concurred with the decision.