Jacks v. Central Coal & Coke Co.
| Decision Date | 11 December 1922 |
| Docket Number | 38 |
| Citation | 245 S.W. 483,156 Ark. 212 |
| Parties | JACKS v. CENTRAL COAL & COKE COMPANY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Dene H. Coleman, Judge; reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This is an action for personal tort brought by John Jacks against the Central Coal & Coke Company.
The plaintiff was injured while in the employment of the defendant in one of its mines in Sebastian County, Ark., by coming in contact with a live electric wire, which the coal company had negligently failed to guard, and which had been charged with electricity at the time the plaintiff was injured. By coming in contact with the wire the plaintiff was injured to the extent that the vision in his left eye was wholly destroyed. He brought this suit against the defendant to recover damages for his injuries, in the circuit court of Jackson County, Ark.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground that it was a foreign corporation and had no business, or property, or money due it, in Jackson County, Ark. It alleged that the plaintiff's cause of action occurred in Sebastian County, Arkansas, where its property is located and where its business is transacted.
The court sustained the motion, and dismissed the complaint of the plaintiff.
From the judgment rendered the plaintiff has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Gustave Jones and G. L. Grant, for appellant.
The court erred in dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff. The venue was properly laid. 115 Ark. 524; 59 Ark. 583; 140 Ark 135.
Service upon T. B. Pryor, agent, was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. C. & M. Digest, § 1829.
Pryor & Miles and John W. Goolsby, for appellee.
There was no error in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. C. & M. Digest, sec. 1174. The court did not have jurisdiction. 140 Ark. 135.
OPINIONHART J. (after stating the facts).
The sole issue raised by the appeal is whether or not the court erred in sustaining the motion of the defendant to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it could not be properly sued in Jackson County, Ark.
It is conceded that the State may require a foreign corporation to submit to the terms imposed by the statute as a condition precedent to carrying on business in the State. Under our Constitution, among those terms may be the designation of an agent to receive service of process in suits brought in the courts of this State. Art. 12, sec. 11 of the Constitution of 1874.
Sec 1826 of Crawford & Moses' Digest, in prescribing the terms upon which a foreign corporation may do business in this State, provides that it shall designate its general office or place of business in this State, and shall name an agent upon whom process may be served.
Sec. 1829 provides that service of summons and other process upon the designated agent shall be sufficient service to give jurisdiction over such corporations to any of the courts in this State, whether the service was had upon said agent within the county where the suit is brought or is pending or not.
In construing these sections, in American Hardwood Lbr. Co. v. Ellis & Co., 115 Ark. 524, 171 S.W. 899, and Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Duty, 140 Ark. 135, 215 S.W. 715, this court sustained the proposition that a foreign corporation may be sued on a transitory cause of action in any jurisdiction where it may be found, in the sense that service may be perfected by serving the summons upon the designated agent of such corporation in another county than that in which the suit was brought.
In those cases it was expressly contended that transitory actions against foreign corporations must be brought in the county where service of summons could be had upon the agent of such corporation designated in the manner provided by the statute. The court said that the language of the statute should not be so limited, and, as above stated, held that in transitory actions service of summons might be had on the designated agent of the foreign corporation within the State outside of the county where the suit was brought.
But it is insisted that the rule announced in those cases does not control here, and that the venue in the case at bar is governed by sec. 1174 of Crawford & Moses' Digest. This section provides that an action other than one of those mentioned in secs. 1164 and 1165 against a nonresident of this State, or a foreign corporation, may be brought in any county in which there may be property of or debts owing the defendant.
It may be stated here that an action for personal tort is not one of those mentioned in secs. 1164 and 1165. In this connection it may also be stated that sec. 1176 provides that every other action may be brought in any county in which the defendant or one of the several defendants, resides, or is summoned. Both of these sections are a part of our civil code, which was enacted many years...
To continue reading
Request your trial