W. T. Adams Mach. Co. v. Castleberry

• Decision Date: 23 December 1907
• Citation: 106 S.W. 940
• Parties: W. T. ADAMS MACH. CO. v. CASTLEBERRY.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

106 S.W. 940

W. T. ADAMS MACH. CO. v. CASTLEBERRY.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 23, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Scott County; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge.

Action by R. A. Castleberry against the W. T. Adams Machine Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Suit was brought by appellee against appellant in the Scott circuit court to recover damages for misrepresentations made by an agent of appellant in the sale of a sawmill to appellee. A summons was duly issued and made returnable at the next term of the court. On the 2d day of the August, 1906, term of court, to which the summons was returnable, the defendant obtained permission to appear specially for the purpose of filing a motion to quash service of summons. The order of the court (omitting the caption) is as follows: "Comes the defendant, W. T. Adams Machine Company, by its attorney, T. N. Sanford, and asks to be permitted to appear specially for the purpose of filing motion to quash the service of the summons herein, which is by the court granted. Whereupon defendant files motion to quash service of summons herein. Motion overruled, and defendant excepts." The grounds of the motion are as follows: (1) Because said W. T. Adams Machine Company is a foreign corporation, and has an agent at Plummerville, Ark., upon whom service should be had. (2) Because T. W. Barnes is not such an agent as service of summons can be properly had on. The return indorsed on summons is as follows: "State of Arkansas, County of Scott. I have this 14th day of April, 1906, duly served the within by delivering a copy and stating the substance thereof to the within named T. W. Barnes, agent, of the said within named machine company, as herein commanded. [Signed] G. W. Grandstaff, Sheriff." Appellant then, without waiving its rights under its motion to quash service of summons, answered, denying the allegations of the complaint. There was a jury trial and a verdict for appellee in the sum of $200. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, and one of the grounds therefor was that the court erred in overruling its motion to quash service of summons. The motion for a new trial was overruled, and the case is brought here by appeal.

T. B. Pryor, for appellant.

HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).

We are met at the threshold of this case by the contention that the return of service on the summons shows no sufficient service. There is no allegation in the complaint as to...