Ex parte Tidwell Industries, Inc.
| Citation | 480 So.2d 1201 |
| Parties | Ex parte: TIDWELL INDUSTRIES, INC., Tidwell Insurance Brokers, Inc., and International Harvester Company, Inc. (In re: Carlton WALDREP, et al. v. TIDWELL INDUSTRIES, INC., Tidwell Insurance Brokers, Inc., and International Harvester Company, Inc., et al.) 84-1148. |
| Decision Date | 08 November 1985 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
De Martenson and Frank E. Lankford, Jr. of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, for petitioner Intern. Harvester.
Andrew Campbell of Leitman, Siegal & Payne, Birmingham, for petitioners Tidwell Indus., Inc., Tidwell Ins. Broker, Inc.
James P. Rea of Hogan, Smith, Alspaugh, Samples, & Pratt, Birmingham, for Waldrep.
Is the trial judge of a county to which a case has been transferred under Rule 82(d)(1), A.R.Civ.P., authorized to consider a motion to retransfer the case to the county in which it was initially filed? This is the issue presented by this petition for writ of mandamus. We hold that he is not and grant the writ.
On November 23, 1983, respondent/plaintiff Waldrep filed suit in Jefferson County against petitioners/defendants Tidwell Industries (Tidwell), Tidwell Brokers, Inc. (Brokers), and International Harvester Company, Inc., seeking damages for personal injuries suffered in a tractor/trailer accident in Mississippi. On January 9, 1984, Tidwell and Brokers filed a motion to transfer the case to Winston County, contending that venue was improper in Jefferson County under Art. XII, § 232, of the Alabama Constitution and § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975. Tidwell and Brokers argue that they are foreign corporations (incorporated under Delaware law) with their principal places of business in Haleyville, Winston County; they also argue that neither corporation was doing business by agent in Jefferson County at the inception of the suit. Officers from both corporations submitted affidavits attesting to the above facts. Waldrep submitted no evidence at the hearing. On January 31, 1984, Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge John Bryan heard arguments on the motion. Based on the information before him, Judge Bryan ordered the case transferred to Winston County.
That same day, Waldrep filed a motion for reconsideration in Jefferson County Circuit Court. In this motion, Waldrep stated that the transfer was "premature ... until the question of 'doing business' can be fairly and accurately resolved by discovery." Waldrep had not previously initiated any discovery proceedings. Thereafter, Waldrep filed a second, similar motion in Jefferson County Circuit Court on March 19, 1984. This motion was supported by a memorandum of law and an affidavit with photographs by an investigator, referring to business allegedly conducted by Tidwell in Jefferson County.
The next day, March 20, Waldrep filed in the Winston County Circuit Court a motion to remand the case to Jefferson County. The trial judge heard arguments on the motion in October 1984, and on July 18, 1985, granted the motion, remanding the case to Jefferson County. Tidwell thereupon filed this petition for writ of mandamus, seeking an order to compel Judge Aderholt, the Winston County judge, to vacate his retransfer order.
The law for determining the proper venue of this action is the Alabama Constitution, Art. XII, § 232, and § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975. The constitutional provision states, in pertinent part:
"Such [foreign] corporation may be sued in any county where it does business, by service of process upon an agent anywhere in the state."
Ala.Const.Art. XII, § 232. Similarly, § 6-3-7 provides:
"A foreign corporation may be sued in any county in which it does business by agent...."
Thus, when a foreign corporation asserts its constitutional privilege against suit in a county in which it is not doing business by agent, the trial court may properly transfer the entire action or the claim against the foreign corporation to a county in which the defendant foreign corporation is amenable to suit. Hodges v. General Shale Products Corp., 346 So.2d 416 (Ala.1977). Rule 82, A.R.Civ.P., makes such a transfer mandatory:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Hicks
...issues addressed in Part I of the Opinion." After this Court released its opinion on September 25, 1998, Ex parte Tidwell Industries, Inc., 480 So.2d 1201 (Ala. 1985), came to the Court's attention. The respondents have not contended, either on original submission or on application for rehe......
-
Elmore County Com'n v. Ragona
...Charles Bell Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac-GMC, Inc., 496 So.2d 774 (Ala.1986); Ex parte Joiner, 486 So.2d 402 (Ala.1986); Ex parte Tidwell Industries, 480 So.2d 1201 (Ala.1985); Ex parte Owen, 437 So.2d 476 (Ala.1983); Ex parte Ford, 431 So.2d 1194 In researching the parties' arguments as to whet......
-
Lawler Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Tarver
...method for obtaining review of a trial court's ruling on a motion for a change of venue is by a writ of mandamus. Ex parte Tidwell Industries, Inc., 480 So.2d 1201 (Ala.1985); Mathis, supra; International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agr. Implement Workers of America v. Palmer, 26......
-
Ex Parte Aig Baker Orange Beach Wharf
...The transferee court, likewise, cannot `retransfer' the case to the county in which it was originally filed. Ex parte Tidwell Indus., Inc., 480 So.2d 1201 (Ala. 1985). `The aggrieved party's sole remedy in such a case is a petition for writ of mandamus directed to the transferor court.' Med......