The State ex rel. St. Joseph Lead Co. v. Jones
| Decision Date | 26 February 1917 |
| Parties | THE STATE ex rel. ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. JONES, Judge of Circuit Court, and WILLIAM R. RAMSEY |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Writ issued.
Politte Elvins and Nagel & Kirby for relator.
(1) Suit against a foreign corporation which keeps in this State an office or agent for the transaction of its usual business must be brought either in the county where the cause of action accrued or in the county where it keeps such office or agent. Sec. 1754, R. S. 1909. "Except as otherwise provided by law" non-residents may be sued in any county under section 1751. But, even if a foreign corporation maintaining an office and agent in this State is to be considered a "non-resident" under section 1751, it is "otherwise provided" by section 1754 that such corporation shall be sued in the county where the cause of action accrued or the county where such office or agent is kept. (2) A foreign corporation complying with our laws and maintaining an office and agent for the transaction of its business in this State is regarded, for purposes of jurisdiction, not as a non-resident, but as a resident of the county where such office or agent is maintained. Harding v. Railroad, 80 Mo. 661; Fitzmaurice v. Turney, 214 Mo. 627; Sidway v. Land Co., 187 Mo. 673; Young v. Niles & Scott Co., 122 Mo.App. 329. (3) The exceptional case of foreign insurance companies, which are held to be residents of and suable in any county in the State by virtue of the specific provisions of section 7042, proves the rule for which we contend. Meyer v. Insurance Co., 184 Mo. 486; State ex rel. v. Grimm, 239 Mo. 166; Spangler v. Protective Assn., 172 Mo.App 255; Rodgers v. National Council, 172 Mo.App. 719.
Safford & Marsalek for respondents.
(1) Suits against non-residents may be brought in any county in the State. Sec. 1751, R. S. 1909; Baisley v Baisley, 113 Mo. 549; Greeley v. Railroad, 123 Mo. 157; Gabriel v. Mullen, 111 Mo. 119; Accident Co. v. Reisinger, 43 Mo.App. 576. (2) The fact that a foreign corporation is licensed to do business in a State other than that of its incorporation does not domesticate it. It is a non-resident of every State except that which granted its charter. Constitution, art. 2, sec 10; Secs. 1751, 1754, R. S. 1909; Herryford v. Ins. Co., 42 Mo. 148; Stanley v. Railroad, 62 Mo. 511; Spangler v. Protective Assn., 172 Mo.App. 255; Middough v. Railroad, 51 Mo. 520; Stone v. Ins. Co., 78 Mo. 655; State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23; 2 Cook on Corporations (4 Ed.), sec. 757; 5 Thompson on Corporations (2 Ed.), secs. 6629-6630; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 377; Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65, 79 U.S. 354; Railroad v. Estill, 147 U.S. 593; Thomas v. Mining Co., 65 Cal. 600; Ivanuch v. Railroad, 128 N.W. 333; Railroad v. Allison, 190 U.S. 236. (3) In 1855, when Sec. 1754, R. S. 1909, was enacted, a foreign corporation could not be brought into court by summons, but only by attachment. McNichols v. Agency Co., 74 Mo. 457; Hill v. Mfg. Co., 4 Mo.App. 595; Gold Issue M. & M. Co. v. Ins Co., 184 S.W. 1003; Farnsworth v. Railroad, 29 Mo. 75.
OPINIONIn Banc.
Prohibition.
This is an original proceeding whereby relator seeks to prohibit respondents from proceeding with a case now pending before Hon. William T. Jones, Judge of Division One of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, wherein William R. Ramsey as plaintiff (one of the respondents herein) seeks to recover from the St. Joseph Lead Company as defendant (relator herein), the sum of $ 25,000 for injuries alleged by plaintiff to have been by him received through the negligence of the defendant while working in the employ of the defendant in St. Francois County, Missouri.
To the relator's petition respondents demur on the ground that the petition and writ do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The facts stated in the petition and thus admitted by the demurrer are substantially as follows:
Suit was instituted, as above mentioned, in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, by William R. Ramsey, a resident of the State of Illinois, against the St. Joseph Lead Company. The cause of action upon which suit was brought did not accrue in the city of St. Louis, but in the county of St. Francois. The defendant, St. Joseph Lead Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of New York and is licensed to do business and is doing business in the State of Missouri and maintains an office and agent for the transaction of its usual and customary business in Jefferson County, Missouri, but has no such office or agent in the city of St. Louis. Summons was issued directed to the sheriff of Jefferson County, who made return showing service upon the defendant in that county.
In due time defendant (relator) appearing specially for that purpose, moved to quash the summons and return, on the ground that the suit was not commenced either in the county where the cause of action accrued, or in the county in which the defendant corporation had or usually kept an office or agent for the transaction of its usual and customary business. The respondent, William T. Jones, as judge of said court, entered an order overruling the motion to quash and was about to entertain further proceedings in the case at the time application was made to this court.
I. The question presented is one of venue and may be stated as follows:
Can suit by summons be instituted against an ordinary foreign business corporation (duly licensed to do and doing business in this State), in any county in this State other than in the county where either the cause of action accrued or where the corporation has or usually keeps an office or agent for the transaction of its usual and customary business?
We have reached the conclusion that the above question must be answered in the negative.
Sections 1751 and 1754, Revised Statutes 1909, the only statutes claimed to deal with this subject, are as follows:
Section 1751: "Suits instituted by summons shall, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought: First, when the defendant is a resident of the State, either in the county within which the defendant resides, or in the county within which the plaintiff resides and the defendant may be found; second, when there are several defendants, and they reside in different counties, the suit may be brought in any such county; third, when there are several defendants, some residents and others non-residents of the State, suit may be brought in any county in this State in which any defendant resides; fourth, when all the defendants are non-residents of the State, suit may be brought in any county in this State; fifth, any action, local or transitory, in which any county shall be plaintiff, may be commenced and prosecuted to final judgment in the county in which the defendant or defendants reside or in the county suing and where the defendants, or one of them may be found." (Italics ours.)
The foregoing section, down to subdivision fifth thereof, was first enacted in its present form in 1855. [See R. S. 1855, p. 1220.] At that revising session of the Legislature, among other changes made in the then existing statute, the words "except as otherwise provided by law" were first inserted.
Section 1754: "Suits against corporations shall be commenced either in the county where the cause of action accrued, (or in case the corporation defendant is a railroad company owning, controlling or operating a railroad running into or through two or more counties in this State, then in either of such counties), or in any county where such corporations shall have or usually keep an office or agent for the transaction of their usual and customary business." (Parentheses ours.)
The last above section was also first enacted in 1855 with the portion in parentheses omitted. [See R. S. 1855, p. 377.] The portion in parentheses was inserted by amendment in 1903.
The first point for determination is: Which of the above sections governs the venue in suits instituted against foreign corporations of the kind and character of relator?
Relator contends that section 1754 governs, while respondent contends that the fourth subdivision of section 1751 applies.
It will be noticed that section 1751, supra, by its express terms, "except as otherwise provided by law," clearly indicates that it was not the legislative intention that said section should prevail over any conflicting statute. In this behalf it is of interest to note that at the same session of the Legislature, to-wit, the revising session of 1855, section 1754 was first enacted providing that suits against corporations should be commenced either in the county where the cause of action accrued or in any county where the corporation has an office or agent for the transaction of its usual or customary business.
The term "corporations" used in section 1754, supra unless limited by construction or by other statute, is certainly broad enough to cover all corporations, foreign as well as domestic. In this connection, however, respondents contend that since foreign corporations could not be served with summons in this State at the time section 1754 was enacted, it should not be held to apply to foreign corporations. We are unable to see wherein this argument can, in any manner, aid the respondents, for if it can properly be said that section 1754, supra, could not apply because no provision existed at that time for serving summons upon foreign...
To continue reading
Request your trial