Harrison v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 17 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-2818,5-2818 |
| Citation | 362 S.W.2d 704,235 Ark. 915 |
| Parties | L. L. HARRISON, Jr., Appellant, v. Melvin MATTHEWS, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl, Little Rock, for appellant.
Mahony & Yocum, El Dorado, for appellee.
By Act 54 of 1961 our courts are authorized to enter personal judgment against a nonresident defendant who was domiciled in this state either at the time the cause of action aroce or at the time he was served with process under the act.Service is had by sending a summons and a copy of the complaint to the nonresident defendant, by registered or certified mail.Ark.Stats.1947, § 27-339.The question here is whether this new method of obtaining personal jurisdiction can be used with respect to a cause of action that arose before the act was passed.
This action was brought by the appellant Harrison to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him when an oil derrick collapsed in Union County, Arkansas, on May 4, 1960.One of the defendants, the appellee Matthews, was domiciled in Arkansas when the accident happened, but he left the state before this suit was filed on June 7, 1961(which was also the effective date of Act 54).Matthews was domiciled in Louisiana on January 12, 1962, when he was served by registered mail pursuant to the new act.This appeal is from an order quashing the service and dismissing the action against Matthews, upon the ground that Act 54 is not applicable to a case involving a cause of action that antedated the statute.
There can hardly be any serious question about the constitutionality of the act as it applies to causes of action arising after the statute went into effect.When a tort occurs in Arkansas, as it did here, this state has a sufficient connection with the controversy to justify basing jurisdiction upon domicile, and service by registered mail is a fair method of providing the defendant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278;International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95;McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223;Kelso v. Bush, 191 Ark. 1044, 89 S.W.2d 594;15 Ark.L.Rev. 428.
The rule by which statutes are construed to operate prospectively does not ordinarily apply to procedural or remedial legislation.State ex rel. Moose v. Kansas City & M. Ry. & B. Co., 117 Ark. 606, 174 S.W. 248.Upon this reasoning we held that the enactment of our venue act, restricting the venue in tort cases, required the dismissal of a case that was properly pending when the act took effect.Fort Smith Gas Co. v. Kincannon, 202 Ark. 216, 150 S.W.2d 968.
Act 54 did not create new substantive rights.Whatever cause of action this appellant now has was already in being when the statute was adopted.Its only effect was to permit a plaintiff to obtain personal jurisdiction in the courts of this state over a nonresident defendant.The act is procedural in nature, merely providing in this instance a new forum for the enforcement of existing rights.Being procedural, the act applies to all cases filed after it became effective.
This is the view that has been taken in the only two states where the exact question has arisen.Under similar statutes in California and New Mexico the courts have held that the new procedure is available in cases involving causes of action that already existed when the acts went into effect.Allen v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.2d 306, 259 P.2d 905;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krueger v. Rheem Mfg. Co.
...673, 676, and Sunday v. Donovan, 16 Ill.App.2d 116, 147 N.E.2d 401, 403, (personal service outside the state); Harrison v. Matthews, 235 Ark. 915, 362 S.W.2d 704, 705, and Safeway Stores Inc. v. Shwayder Brothers, Inc., 238 Ark. 768, 384 S.W.2d 473, 475--476, (registered or certified mail);......
-
Adams Dairy Company v. National Dairy Products Corp.
...at the time the cause of action arose but who had thereafter left the state. The new statute was construed in Harrison v. Matthews, (Ark. Sup.Ct.1962) 235 Ark. 915, 362 S.W.2d 704. That court had no difficulty in finding Act 54 did not create new substantive rights. Whatever cause of action......
-
Estate of Evangeline Aka v Jefferson Hospital Assoc.
...but only supply a new or more appropriate remedy to enforce an existing right or obligation." Id.; see also Harrison v. Matthews, 235 Ark. 915, 362 S.W.2d 704 (1962). When this court overrules a prior decision and states the rule to be followed in the future, we also acknowledge the need to......
-
Harmon v. Eudaily
...Ark. 1010, 214 S.W.2d 212 (1948), has been limited strictly to its peculiar facts 1 in subsequent decisions. See Harrison v. Matthews, 235 Ark. 915, 362 S.W.2d 704 (1962), and Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Shwayder Bros., Inc., 238 Ark. 768, 384 S.W.2d 473 (1964). Both of these cases upheld the r......