Florida. Service of summons was apparently effected on defendant
outside of Illinois under the provisions of the Illinois long-arm
statute (ch. 110, Ill.Rev.Stat., §§ 16-17), which purports to
permit valid service on non-resident defendants outside the
state, inter alia, "as to any cause of action arising from *
* * the transaction of any business within [Illinois]."
It is clear that Illinois has attempted to assert jurisdiction
over non-resident defendants by such service, to the full extent
permitted by the due-process clause of the United States
Constitution. Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 143 N.E.2d 673
(1957). Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over
the person of defendant through such service, on the basis that
defendant's contacts with Illinois have not been such as would
subject it to jurisdiction in this state under the "minimum
contacts" rule of International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), and Lindley v. St.
Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., 407 F.2d 639 (7th Cir. 1968).
Plaintiff strongly resists said motion.
Each side has filed an affidavit; and while they assert
different facts, they present no significant factual conflict.
Consequently, the significant facts appear to be before the
court, on the subject of defendant's contacts with Illinois, from
the viewpoint of both parties to this disputed issue of law.
It appears that defendant has no property of any kind in
Illinois, no office, or books, or records. Its products are
widely sold in Illinois to, and through, a distributor. They are
purchased by the independent distributor from defendant's office
in Florida and are shipped to it F.O.B. New York. Plaintiff's
services were ordered by defendant from Florida, by contacting
plaintiff's New York office; and defendant has had no contact
whatsoever with plaintiff's Illinois office, except that
initiated by plaintiff's Illinois office after the dispute in
It also appears that plaintiff performed substantial services
for defendant, in Illinois, in February through June 1980, after
meetings outside of Illinois by representatives of the parties,
which services have all been billed and paid for. During those
services, publications were mailed widely in a name indicating
defendant's responsibility therefor, showing a return address in
Illinois, which was actually the address of plaintiff's office,
POLYGLYCOAT WARRANTY TRAC
1909 East Cornell Drive
Peoria, Illinois 61614
Thereafter, pursuant to alleged further agreement, plaintiff
created additional large mailings for defendant, to solicit
customers to notify them of available services and to invite them
to various regional seminars, etc. The mailings included "sign up
cards" to be return-mailed by customers, addressed as follows: