S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, No. 46274
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | PATTERSON; ETHRIDGE |
| Citation | 249 So.2d 379 |
| Docket Number | No. 46274 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 1971 |
| Parties | S & A REALTY COMPANY, a Corporation, Complainant/Appellant, v. L. B. HILBURN and Wife, Jane B. Hilburn, Defendants/Appellees. |
Page 379
v.
L. B. HILBURN and Wife, Jane B. Hilburn, Defendants/Appellees.
Page 380
Wells, Wells, Marble & Hurst, Jackson, for complainant-appellant.
L. Breland Hilburn, Jackson, for defendants-appellees.
PATTERSON, Justice.
This appeal is from a final decree of the Chancery Court of Madison County which sustained a motion by L. B. Hilburn and his wife to dismiss the bill of complaint of S & A Realty Company for specific performance of a contract. The basis of the motion was that the complainant, a foreign corporation, was transacting business within the state, but had not qualified so to do, and was therefore barred from maintaining a suit in the courts of this state.
S & A Realty Company, a lessee of the Hilburns, filed its bill for specific performance of a lease contract which was executed on January 10, 1952, on certain lands in Madison County. The lease was for a span of ten years with an option to renew for an additional ten years and in the event of renewal the lessee was thereby granted an option to purchase the property. The lessee alleges that it had complied with all provisions of the lease and has now offered to exercise its option to purchase, but that the lessors, appellees, have refused to comply with the contract. This refusal precipitated this suit.
The lessors filed a sworn motion to dismiss the bill. It states:
(1)
That the S & A Realty Co., successor to the Alvin Siteman, Inc., was present in the State of Mississippi and was doing and transacting business by virtue of the performance of the following acts to-wit:
(A) The leasing of real property located in Madison County, Mississippi, said lease being finally executed and given force and effect within the state of Mississippi on 17th (sic) day of January, 1952.
(B) An agreement to construct a service station upon the property of the Defendants and the subsequent construction of said service station by lessor or its agent or agents acting for its principal.
(C) The maintaining and operating of the service station from date of construction until the present date either by lessee or by its agent or agents.
(D) The agreement to pay and the payment of $1200.00 annual rent in monthly installments to lessor for 10 years and lessee paying $125.00 per month upon releasing all being a continuing obligation to be performed by lessee and now being performed by lessee.
(E) The performance of acts and transaction which are pursuant to the very purpose of the corporation's existence
Page 381
and not acts incidental to its purpose.(F) The presence of the corporation within the state in an effort to purchase and hold real property in fee simple in the corporate name, also pursuant to the purpose of the corporation.
(G) Other matter to be shown upon hearing.
(2)
That the S & A Realty Company was formerly the Alvin Siteman, Inc. and that said Alvin Siteman, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, is not qualified to transact or do business in the State of Mississippi in that it has no Certificate of Authority pursuant to Section 5309-239 and that said Alvin Siteman, Inc. or S & A Realty Company is not authorized to transact business in this State pursuant to its purpose of incorporation.
Whereupon, the appellant, S & A Realty Company, filed an affidavit contra to the motion to dismiss. It provides in short:
The principal executive offices and place of business of S & A Realty Company, formerly of Alvin Siteman, Inc., is the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri. That said corporation was formerly named Alvin Siteman, Inc., but by change of name it is now S & A Realty Company. That said corporation is not and has never been qualified to do business in the State of Mississippi. That the only asset that it has in the State of Mississippi, is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Jones v. Phillips, No. 2006-CA-01898-SCT.
...556 So.2d 303, 308 (Miss.1989) (citing MISS CAL 204, Ltd. v. Upchurch, 465 So.2d 326, 330 (Miss.1985); S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379, 382 (Miss.1971)). Jurisdiction is determined as of the time the suit is filed. Euclid-Mississippi v. Western Cas. & Sur. Co., 249 Miss. 547, 554......
-
Cooper v. Crabb, No. 89-CA-1345
...568 So.2d 720, 723 (Miss.1990); Cole v. National Life Insurance Co., 549 So.2d 1301, 1303 (Miss.1989); S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379, 382 Notwithstanding our respect for and deference to the trial judge, on matters of law it is our job to get it right. That the trial judge may ......
-
McDaniel v. Ritter, 07-59440
...the state proceeds on an ad hoc basis. Miss Cal 204, Ltd. v. Upchurch, 465 So.2d 326, 330 (Miss.1985); S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379, 382 (Miss.1971). Our review of jurisdictional issues is essentially de novo: "In making this determination, this Court is in the same position a......
-
Washington v. Norton Mfg., Inc., No. 78-2404
..."minimal contacts" for state to assert jurisdiction over an individual who gave a speech in state); Cf. S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379 (Miss.1971) (construing "doing business" provision of statute which barred unqualified corporations from suing in state courts): Hilbun v. Calif......
-
McDaniel v. Ritter, No. 07-59440
...the state proceeds on an ad hoc basis. Miss Cal 204, Ltd. v. Upchurch, 465 So.2d 326, 330 (Miss.1985); S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379, 382 (Miss.1971). Our review of jurisdictional issues is essentially de novo: "In making this determination, this Court is in the same position a......
-
Estate of Jones v. Phillips, No. 2006-CA-01898-SCT.
...556 So.2d 303, 308 (Miss.1989) (citing MISS CAL 204, Ltd. v. Upchurch, 465 So.2d 326, 330 (Miss.1985); S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379, 382 (Miss.1971)). Jurisdiction is determined as of the time the suit is filed. Euclid-Mississippi v. Western Cas. & Sur. Co., 249 Miss. 547, 554......
-
Cooper v. Crabb, No. 89-CA-1345
...568 So.2d 720, 723 (Miss.1990); Cole v. National Life Insurance Co., 549 So.2d 1301, 1303 (Miss.1989); S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379, 382 Notwithstanding our respect for and deference to the trial judge, on matters of law it is our job to get it right. That the trial judge may ......
-
Washington v. Norton Mfg., Inc., No. 78-2404
..."minimal contacts" for state to assert jurisdiction over an individual who gave a speech in state); Cf. S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379 (Miss.1971) (construing "doing business" provision of statute which barred unqualified corporations from suing in state courts): Hilbun v. Calif......