Panamerican Consulting Co. v. Corbu Industrial, S. A.

PER Curiam. Panamerican Consulting Company, Inc., the appellant, sued Corbu Industrial, S.A., a Mexican corporation, in Maryland on the ground that the contract sued on was made in Maryland. The lower court held that the suit must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Panamerican is a consulting engineering corporation with headquarters in Maryland.

It had a contract with Corbu for the erection of a 48-ton Naval stores plant in Mexico. Hercules Powder Company bought the controlling interest in Corbu, and Warren S. Beasley, Manager of its Naval stores department, with the approval of Paul Mayfield, its Vice President and new President of Corbu, telephoned Panameri ⁴⁸⁰ can and invited the submission of terms cancelling the existing contract and erection of a 96 ton plant. Panamerican submitted terms by telephone and about August 1, 1956 was told verbally by Beasley to proceed immediately and “we will rewrite the contract accordingly.” On August 28, 1956, Musall, Vice President of Panamerican, met Beasley and Mayfield in Wilmington, Delaware, discussed the contract, reached agreement and caused a contract to be drawn. It was in the form of a proposal by Panamerican, ending “Respectfully Submitted Panamerican Consulting Company by ..........” and the date “August 28, 1956”.

Immediately under this Mayfield and Beasley put their initials and the date in figures “8/28/56”. Below all this were the words: “Accepted Corbu Industrial S.A. by Date” After the document had been initialed by Mayfield and Beasley, Musall took it back to Maryland where it was signed the same day by the