of contract, and Nyman for interference with contract. Allied
moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue and
insufficiency of service of process. The motion is granted.
Quartet, an Illinois corporation, is in the business of
manufacturing and selling, at wholesale, bulletin boards and
related items. Allied, a Hong Kong corporation, is an exporter of
bulletin board push pins. Nyman, whose principal placed of
business is New York, is an importer of office supplies,
including bulletin board push pins, and allegedly is in control
of a substantial portion of the imported push pin market in the
Quartet placed a letter order for push pins with Allied in
November 1970. Confirmation was made in writing. Shipment was to
be FOB Hong Kong. The only meeting between Quartet and Allied was
in Hong Kong in August 1970. Allied never shipped the push pins,
allegedly due to threats by Nyman that it would discontinue all
further business with Allied.
Quartet filed this suit and served Allied under the Illinois
"long-arm" statute, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, §§ 16-17. It is
undisputed that Allied has its principal place of business in
Hong Kong, is not qualified to do business in Illinois, has not
consented to service of process in Illinois, is not the parent or
subsidiary of any corporation doing business in Illinois,
maintains no office in Illinois, does not and has not sent any
agents or employees into Illinois, does not own real or personal
property in Illinois, did not solicit Quartet's order of push
pins, did not have an employee or agent present in Illinois in
connection with Quartet's order of push pins and did not
contemplate or foresee that it might have to defend a lawsuit in
The Court is mindful that the Illinois legislature has expanded
in personam jurisdiction to the limits permitted under the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that judicial
decisions in this area have liberalized the requirements for
jurisdiction. Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 143 N.E.2d 673
(1957); Royce & Mason, Nonresident Jurisdiction in Business
Litigation, 52 Chicago Bar Record 100, 161 (Dec. 1971, Jan.
1972). However, the courts applying Illinois law have not gone so
far as to hold "that the existence of a business relationship
with an Illinois resident without proof of some ancillary contact
with the forum will . . . suffice. . . ." Royce & Mason, supra,
Plaintiff's cases are distinguishable. In O'Hare International
Bank v. Hampton, 437 F.2d 1173 (7th Cir. 1971) the contractual
negotiations were initiated by the defendant; one of the
defendants was physically present in Illinois to discuss the
contract; the contract was accepted in Illinois; payments were to
be made in Illinois; and, the contract was to be construed
according to Illinois law. Both Koplin v. Thomas, Haab & Botts,
73 Ill. App.2d 242, 219 N.E.2d 646 (1966) and Ziegler v.
Houghton-Mifflin Co., 80 Ill. App.2d 210, 224 N.E.2d 12 (1967)
involved far greater contacts with Illinois by the defendants
The complaint will be dismissed as to Allied.
It is so ordered.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.