local agent

In 1930, Dick, a citizen of Texas who had resided in Mexico at the time the insurance policy was issued and assigned to him, brought an action in a Texas state court against Compania General Anglo-Mexicana de Seguros S.A., a Mexican corporation, seeking recovery on a fire insurance policy for the total loss of a tug. Jurisdiction over the Mexican corporation was asserted through garnishment by ancillary writs issued against The Home Insurance Company and Franklin Fire Insurance Company, New York corporations that had reinsured portions of the risk. Service on the garnishees was effected by serving their local agents in Texas, who had been appointed pursuant to Texas statutes requiring foreign corporations to appoint such agents to do business in the state. The Mexican corporation had never been admitted to do business in Texas, had not done business there, and had not authorized anyone to receive service of process in the state. The policy had been issued by the Mexican company in Mexico to Bonner of Tampico, Mexico, and was there assigned to Dick prior to the loss. It covered the vessel only in certain Mexican waters, with the premium paid in Mexico, and the loss payable in Mexico City in Mexican funds or their equivalent elsewhere. The policy contained a provision requiring that any judicial suit for a claim under the policy be filed within one year from the date of the damage, a term consistent with Mexican law to which the policy was expressly subject. At all relevant times prior to the loss, Dick actually resided in Mexico, although his permanent residence was in Texas. The contracts of reinsurance were effected by correspondence between the Mexican company in Mexico and the New York companies in New York, with nothing under those contracts done in Texas. This suit was not commenced until more than one year after the date of the loss. In the trial court, the garnishees raised a defense based on the one-year limitation in the policy. Dick demurred, relying on Article 5545 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes, which prohibited stipulations limiting the time to sue to less than two years. The trial court sustained the demurrer and entered judgment against the garnishees. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the judgment, treating the policy provision as equivalent to a foreign statute of limitation and holding the Texas statute applicable to the remedy in Texas courts. The garnishees appealed to the United States Supreme Court, asserting that the Texas statute as construed and applied violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the contract clause. Dick moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The garnishees also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court postponed consideration of its jurisdiction and the certiorari petition to the hearing on the merits.

In the 1950s a public controversy developed over the operation of the Belknap County Recreation Area, a ski resort and recreational facility owned and operated by Belknap County, New Hampshire. Respondent Baer was employed by the three elected Belknap County Commissioners as Supervisor of the Area and was directly responsible for its management and financial affairs. In 1959 the New Hampshire Legislature enacted a statute transferring control of the Recreation Area to a new five-member commission. At least in part to give the new regime a fresh start, Baer was discharged. Six months later, in January 1960 during the first ski season under the new commission, petitioner Rosenblatt, an unpaid columnist for the Laconia Evening Citizen, published a column that compared cash income under the prior and current administrations and asked what had happened to all the money in prior years. Baer filed a civil libel action in New Hampshire Superior Court alleging that the column contained defamatory falsehoods concerning his performance. A jury awarded him damages. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in an opinion reported at 106 N. H. 26, 203 A. 2d 773. Between the trial and the decision of the appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and directed the parties to address whether Baer was a public official under that decision.