stating that, while "solicitation by a nonresident purchaser for delivery outside the forum state is a more No. 21AP-43 12 minimal contact than that of a seller soliciting the right to ship goods into the forum state," the "ultimate test is whether the defendant, either as seller or buyer, has performed 'some act by which [it has] purposefully [availed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state' "
How later courts described this case
- stating that, while "solicitation by a nonresident purchaser for delivery outside the forum state is a more No. 21AP-43 12 minimal contact than that of a seller soliciting the right to ship goods into the forum state," the "ultimate test is whether the defendant, either as seller or buyer, has performed 'some act by which [it has] purposefully [availed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state' "
- holding that there was no personal jurisdiction where the only contacts between the defendant and the forum were communications initiated by the plaintiff with a nonresident trustee, and stating that personal jurisdiction requires “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State”
- holding that forum state had no personal jurisdiction over out-of-state trustee where the record evidence disclosed no solicitation of business by the trustee in the forum state, agreement had no connection to the forum state, and the trustee’s sole interaction with the forum state consisted of remit ting trust income to a resident in the forum state
- stating that a plaintiff cannot create jurisdiction over a defendant based on the plaintiffs unilateral activity; instead, “it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
The testatrix died domiciled in Florida. Her will, made after she had acquired a domicile in Florida, was probated there. Prior to the time she established a domicile in Florida she executed a trust instrument in Delaware. By its terms she was to receive the income during her life. On her death the principal and undistributed income were to go as provided in any power of appointment or, failing that, in her last will and testament.
After she had become domiciled in Florida she executed a power of appointment; and she also provided in her will that if the power of appointment had not been effectively exercised, the property under the trust, consisting of intangibles, should pass to certain designated trusts.
The Florida court held that the power of appointment was testamentary in character and not being a valid testamentary disposition for lack of the requisite witnesses, failed as a will under Florida law. Therefore the property passed under the will. 100 So. 2d 378 .
Distribution of the assets of the estate could not be made without determining the validity of the power of appointment. The power of appointment, being integrated with the will, was as much subject to construction and interpretation by the Florida court as the will itself. Of course one not a party or privy io the Florida proceedings is not bound by it and can separately liti *263 gate the right to assets in other States. See Riley v. New York Trust Co., 315 U. S. 343 ; Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U. S. 394 . But we have no such situation here. The trustee of the trust was in privity with the deceased. She was the settlor; and under the trust, the trustee was to do her bidding. That is to say, the trustee, though managing the res during the life of the settlor, was on her death to transfer the property to such persons as the settlor designated by her power of appointment or by her last will and testament, or, failing that, to designated classes of persons. So far as the present controversy is concerned the trustee was purely and simply a stakeholder or an agent holding assets of the settlor to dispose of as she designated. It had' a community of interest with the deceased. I see no reason therefore why Florida could not say that the deceased and her executrix may stand in judgment for the trustee so far as the disposition of the property under the power of appointment and the will is concerned. The question in cases of this kind is whether the procedure is fair and just, considering the interests of the parties. Cf. Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32 ; Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 312-317 . Florida has such a plain and compelling relation to these out-of-state intangibles (cf. Curry v. McCanless, 307 U. S. 357 ), and the nexus between the settlor and trustee is so close, as to give Florida the right to make the controlling determination even without personal service over the trustee and those who claim under it. We must remember this is not a suit to impose liability on the Delaware trustee or on any other absent person. It is merely a suit to determine interests in those intangibles. Cf. Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., supra, at 313. Under closely analogous facts the California Supreme Court held in Atkinson v. Superior Court, 49 Cal. 2d 338 , 316 P. 2d 960 , that California had *264 jurisdiction over an absent trustee. I would hold the same here. The decedent was domiciled in Florida; most of the legatees are there; and the absent trustee through whom the others claim was an agency so close to the decedent as to be held to be privy with her — in other words so identified in interest with her as to represent the same legal right.