Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 151 N.W. 917.

41 citing documents.

Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Co., 129 Minn. 104, 108 , 151 N.W.
Pierce v. Grand Army of the Republic 20 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1945
Pierce v. Grand Army of the Republic 20 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1945
Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602, 617 , 19 S. Ct. 308, 314 , 43 L. ed. 569, 574; W. J. Armstrong Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L. R. A. 1916E, 232, Ann. Cas.
State v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 7 N.W.2d 691 Minn. 1942
State v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 7 N.W.2d 691 Minn. 1942
State v. Weyerhauser, 72 Minn. 519 , ; W. J. Armstrong Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , Ann. Cas.
High v. Supreme Lodge of the World 289 N.W. 519 Minn. 1940
High v. Supreme Lodge of the World 289 N.W. 519 Minn. 1940
For a thorough discussion of what constitutes the doing of business, see W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L. R. A. 1916E, 232, Ann. Cas.
Dahl v. Collette 279 N.W. 561 Minn. 1938
Dahl v. Collette 279 N.W. 561 Minn. 1938
Dahl v. Collette 279 N.W. 561 Minn. 1938
Co. 81 Minn. 346 , ; Archer-Daniels Linseed Co. v. Blue Ridge Despatch, 113 Minn. 367 , ; W. J. Armstrong Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L. R. A. 1916E, 232, Ann. Cas.
Dahl v. Collette 279 N.W. 561 Minn. 1938
C. H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , 151 N.W.
Carey v. Brown 260 N.W. 320 Minn. 1935
Paterson v. Shattuck Arizona Copper Co. 210 N.W. 620 Minn. 1926
Paterson v. Shattuck Arizona Copper Co. 210 N.W. 620 Minn. 1926
In W. J. Armstrong Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L. R. A. 1916E, 232, Ann. Cas.
Thompson v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad 190 N.W. 797 Minn. 1922
Thompson v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad 190 N.W. 797 Minn. 1922
It seems clear to us that he is an agent within this state for the solicitation of passenger traffic within the meaning of the statute and that the case is ruled by the decisions in W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L. R. A. 1916E, 232, Ann. Cas.
Massey Steamship Co. v. Norske Lloyd Insurance 189 N.W. 714 Minn. 1922
Massey Steamship Co. v. Norske Lloyd Insurance 189 N.W. 714 Minn. 1922
W. J. Armstrong v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L. R. A. 1916E, 232, Ann. Cas.
Farmers Co-operative Equity Co. v. Payne 186 N.W. 130 Minn. 1921
Farmers Co-operative Equity Co. v. Payne 186 N.W. 130 Minn. 1921
This question has already been determined adversely to defendant by this court in the following cases: W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L.R.A.
Callaghan v. Union Pacific Railroad 182 N.W. 1004 Minn. 1921
Callaghan v. Union Pacific Railroad 182 N.W. 1004 Minn. 1921
The cases cited are: W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L.R.A.
Fletcher v. Southern Colonization Co. 181 N.W. 205 Minn. 1921
Fletcher v. Southern Colonization Co. 181 N.W. 205 Minn. 1921
W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L.R.A.
Merchants Elevator Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. 179 N.W. 734 Minn. 1920
Merchants Elevator Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. 179 N.W. 734 Minn. 1920
We think this question has already been answered in the affirmative in W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , L.R.A.
State ex rel. Lundgren v. District Court 169 N.W. 488 Minn. 1918
State ex rel. Lundgren v. District Court 169 N.W. 488 Minn. 1918
Louis County, 129 Minn. 176 , ; State v. District Court of St.
Rishmiller v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad 159 N.W. 272 Minn. 1916
Rishmiller v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad 159 N.W. 272 Minn. 1916
In Armstrong v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , it was held that this statute is valid and that service upon such an agent gave the court jurisdiction.
Prigge v. Selz 158 N.W. 975 Minn. 1916
Prigge v. Selz 158 N.W. 975 Minn. 1916
We think that defendant was doing business in this state and that such service was valid under the rule established in the following and similar cases: W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , ; Atkinson v. United States Operating Co. 129 Minn. 232 , ; International Harvester Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579 , 34 Sup.
Jenks v. Royal Baking Powder Co. 155 N.W. 103 Minn. 1915
Jenks v. Royal Baking Powder Co. 155 N.W. 103 Minn. 1915
W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , ; Atkinson v. United States Operating Co. 129 Minn. 232 , ; Kulberg v. Fraternal Union of America, supra, page 131, ; Lattu v. Ontario & Minn. Power Co., supra, page 162, .
Lattu v. Ontario & Minnesota Power Co. 154 N.W. 950 Minn. 1915
Lattu v. Ontario & Minnesota Power Co. 154 N.W. 950 Minn. 1915
Ct. 308, 43 L. ed. 569; W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , .
Lagergren v. Pennsylvania Railroad 152 N.W. 1102 Minn. 1915
Lagergren v. Pennsylvania Railroad 152 N.W. 1102 Minn. 1915
The case is controlled by the decision in Armstrong v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co. 129 Minn. 104 , , where substantially the same question was presented.
Atkinson v. United States Operating Co. 152 N.W. 410 Minn. 1915
Atkinson v. United States Operating Co. 152 N.W. 410 Minn. 1915
Ct. 308, 43 L. ed. 569; Armstrong Co. v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co. supra, page 104, , and cases cited.