State v. Jones

Decision Date26 February 1917
Docket NumberNo. 20027.,20027.
Citation192 S.W. 980,270 Mo. 230
PartiesSTATE ex rel. ST. JOSEPH LEAD CO. v. JONES, Circuit Judge, et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Original proceeding in prohibition by the St. Joseph Lead Company against William T. Jones, Circuit Judge, and another. Respondents demur to the petition. Preliminary rule of prohibition made permanent.

This is an original proceeding whereby relator seeks to prohibit respondents from proceeding with a case now pending before Hon. William T. Jones, judge of division 1 of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, wherein William R. Ramsey, as plaintiff (one of the respondents herein), seeks to recover from the St. Joseph Lead Company, as defendant (relator herein), the sum of $25,000 for injuries alleged by plaintiff to have been by him received through the negligence of the defendant while working in the employ of the defendant in St. Francois county, Mo.

To the relator's petition respondents demur on the ground that the petition and writ do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The facts stated in the petition and thus admitted by the demurrer are substantially as follows: Suit was instituted, as above mentioned, in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis by William R. Ramsey, a resident of the state of Illinois, against the St. Joseph Lead Company. The cause of action upon which suit was brought did not accrue in the city of St. Louis, but in the county of St. Francois. The defendant St. Joseph Lead Company is a corporation organized under the laws of New York, and is licensed to do business and is doing business in the state of Missouri, and maintains an office and agent for the transaction of its usual and customary business in Jefferson county, Mo., but has no such office or agent in the city of St. Louis. Summons was issued directed to the sheriff of Jefferson county, who made return showing service upon the defendant in that county. In due time defendant (relator), appearing specially for that purpose, moved to quash the summons and return on the ground that the suit was not commenced either in the county where the cause of action accrued or in the county in which the defendant corporation had or usually kept an office or agent for the transaction of its usual and customary business. The respondent William T. Jones, as judge of said court, entered an order overruling the motion to quash, and was about to entertain further proceedings in the case at the time application was made to this court.

Politte Elvins, of Elvins, and Nagel & Kirby, of St. Louis, for relator. Safford & Marsalek, of St. Louis, for respondents.

WILLIAMS, J. (after stating the facts as above).

I. The question presented is one of venue, and may be stated as follows: Can suit by summons be instituted against an ordinary foreign business corporation (duly licensed to do and doing business in this state) in any county other than in the county where either the cause of action accrued or where the corporation has or usually keeps an office or agent for the transaction of its usual and customary business? We have reached the conclusion that the above question must be answered in the negative.

Sections 1751 and 1754, R. S. 1909, the only statutes claimed to deal with this subject, are as follows:

"Sec. 1751. Suits instituted by summons shall, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought: First, when the defendant is a resident of the state, either in the county within which the defendant resides, or in the county within which the plaintiff resides and the defendant may be found; second, when there are several defendants, and they reside in different counties, the suit may be brought in any such county; third, when there are several defendants, some residents and others nonresidents of the state, suit may be brought in any county in this state in which any defendant resides; fourth, when all the defendants are nonresidents of the state, suit may be brought in any county in this state; fifth, any action, local or transitory, in which any county shall be plaintiff, may be commenced and prosecuted to final judgment in the county in which the defendant or defendants reside, or in the county suing and where the defendants, or one of them, may be found." (Italics ours.)

The foregoing section, down to subdivision fifth thereof, was first enacted in its present form in 1855. See R. S. Mo. 1855, p. 1220. At that revising session of the Legislature, among other changes made in the then existing statute, the words "except as otherwise provided by law" were first inserted.

"Sec. 1754. Suits against corporations shall be commenced either in the county where the cause of action accrued, (or in case the corporation defendant is a railroad company owning, controlling or operating a railroad running into or through two or more counties in this state then in either of such counties), or in any county where such corporations shall have or usually keep an office or agent for the transaction of their usual and customary business." (Parentheses ours.)

The last above section was also first enacted in 1855 with the portion in parentheses omitted. See R. S. Mo. 1855, p. 377. The portion in parentheses was inserted by amendment in 1903.

The first point for determination is: Which of the above sections governs the venue in suits instituted against foreign corporations of the kind and character of relator? Relator contends that section 1754 governs, while respondent contends that the fourth subdivision of section 1751 applies.

It will be noticed that section 1751, supra, by its express terms, "except as otherwise provided by law," clearly indicates that it was not the legislative intention that said section should prevail over any conflicting statute. In this behalf it is of interest to note that at the same session of the Legislature, to wit, the revising session of 1855, section 1754 was first enacted, providing that suits against corporations should be commenced either in the county where the cause of action accrued or in any county where the corporation has an office or agent for the transaction of its usual or customary business.

The term "corporations," used in section 1754, supra,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Clark v. Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1931
    ... ... Inasmuch as the petition alleges that the defendant is a ... brotherhood or fraternal organization and is engaged in this ... State in the business of issuing beneficial certificates or ... policies of insurance on the lives of its members, and that ... it possesses powers and ... Sec. 723, R. S. 1929; ... State ex rel. Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Gantt, 203 ... S.W. 964; State ex rel. St. Joseph Lead Co. v ... Jones, 192 S.W. 980. (9) By filing a demurrer in which ... the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the City of St ... Louis over the respondent was ... ...
  • In re State ex rel. Standard Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut v. Gantt
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1918
    ...35, 97, which became the law in the case of Houston v. Pulitzer Company, 249 Mo. 332, and as was done in the recent case of State ex rel v. Jones, 192 S.W. 980. There nothing in the language of section 7042 authorizing service of process upon the Superintendent of Insurance "in all proceedi......
  • State ex rel. Fielder v. Kirkwood
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1940
    ... ... 989; Harris v. Balk, 198 ... U.S. 215, 49 L.Ed. 1023; L. & N. Railroad Co. v ... Deer, 200 U.S. 176, 50 L.Ed. 426; Davis v. C., C., ... C., & St. L. Ry. Co., 217 U.S. 157, 54 L.Ed. 708; ... Wiener v. Am. Ins. Co., 224 Pa. 292, 73 A. 443; ... State ex rel. Lead Co. v. Jones, 270 Mo. 230, 192 ... S.W. 980; State ex rel. Henning v. Williams, 131 S.W.2d 561 ...          Fordyce, ... White, Mayne, Williams & Hartman for respondents; ... Samuel Kassel and John A. Bloomingston of ...          (1) The ... situs of the debt is at the place of ... ...
  • State ex rel. Fielder v. Kirkwood, 36779.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1940
    ... ... Amer. Express Co., 219 S.W. 989; Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 49 L. Ed. 1023; L. & N. Railroad Co. v. Deer, 200 U.S. 176, 50 L. Ed. 426; Davis v. C., C., C., & St. L. Ry. Co., 217 U.S. 157, 54 L. Ed. 708; Wiener v. Am. Ins. Co., 224 Pa. 292, 73 Atl. 443; State ex rel. Lead Co. v. Jones, 270 Mo. 230, 192 S.W. 980; State ex rel. Henning v. Williams, 131 S.W. (2d) 561 ...         Fordyce, White, Mayne, Williams & Hartman for respondents; Samuel Kassel and John A. Bloomingston of counsel ...         (1) The situs of the debt is at the place of residence of the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT