American Ry. Express Co. v. H. Rouw Co.

• Decision Date: 16 May 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 452.)
• Citation: 294 S.W. 416
• Parties: AMERICAN RY. EXPRESS CO. v. H. ROUW CO. (two cases).
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

294 S.W. 416

AMERICAN RY. EXPRESS CO. v. H. ROUW CO. (two cases).

(No. 452.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 16, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; James Cochran, Judge.

Two suits brought by the H. Rouw Company against the American Railway Express Company. From a judgment for plaintiff in each case, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Warner, Hardin & Warner, of Ft. Smith, for appellant.

C. M. Wofford, of Van Buren, for appellee.

HART, C. J.

The issues raised by these two cases are the same, and one opinion will suffice. Each case is an appeal by a common carrier from a judgment against it in favor of a shipper for damages for the alleged negligence of the carrier in failing to refrigerate a car of strawberries during transit in an interstate shipment.

It appears from the record that the car of strawberries in each case was shipped from a point in Louisiana to New York City and did not at any time while en route come into the state of Arkansas. The plaintiff is a domestic corporation organized under the laws of the state of Arkansas and is engaged in business at Van Buren, Ark. The defendant is a foreign corporation, but has complied with the laws of the state of Arkansas with regard to carrying on its express business in the state.

It is claimed by counsel for the appellant that the appeal should be dismissed under these circumstances because it would be a burden on interstate commerce to require the defendant to answer to a suit in this state. The contention of counsel for the appellant on this point is concluded against it by the opinion of this court in American Railway Express Company v. H. Rouw Co., 294 S. W. 401, where it was expressly held that an action of this sort may be maintained against a foreign corporation by a resident of this state or by a domestic corporation.

In the case at bar, the cause of action was a transitory one, and the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. The plaintiff is a domestic corporation carrying on its business in this state and as such is subject to suit in the courts of this state at the hands of any one having a cause of action against it. The defendant is a foreign corporation and has complied with our laws with reference to such corporations doing business in this state. Our courts are open to it, and its property within the state is protected by our laws. Its express business is of necessity operated as a unity, and its agents in this state have facilities for investigating claims against it.

Other reasons might be given why the courts of this state should entertain jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in behalf of a domestic corporation for a cause of action arising out of the state; but inasmuch as no good reason appears to us why the court should refuse to entertain such jurisdiction, we do not deem further comment necessary. Gregonis v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 235 N. Y. 152, 139 N. E. 223, 32 A. L. R. p. 1, and case note.

It is next insisted that the judgment should be reversed because plaintiff...