Williams v. Priddy, 4-3304.
| Decision Date | 13 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-3304.,4-3304. |
| Citation | 64 S.W.2d 553 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. PRIDDY, Judge. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
A. M. Dobbs, of Fort Smith, for plaintiff.
Dean, Moore & Brazil, of Morrilton, for defendant.
This is a petition for a writ of prohibition by plaintiff to prevent the judge of the circuit court of Conway county from proceeding in a suit for damages by Bishop Luie against plaintiff, his deputy, J. S. McCuen, and his official bondsmen for injuries received by Bishop Luie through the negligent driving by his deputy of a stolen automobile with his prisoner, on highway No. 64, near Blackwell, in said county. The plaintiff herein resided in Sebastian county, and the negligent act alleged against the deputy was that he turned off the accustomed right-hand side of the highway onto the left-hand side thereof and ran into a wagon in which Bishop Luie was riding. All the defendants in the damage suit, including plaintiff herein, resided in and were served with process in some other county than Conway county, where the suit was brought and is pending.
Plaintiff herein appeared specially and moved to quash service upon him on the ground that the suit should have been brought in the county of his residence, and that by reason of the failure to do so the circuit court of Conway county was without jurisdiction to entertain and try the cause.
The motion was overruled over the objection and exception of plaintiff herein, and this suit for a writ of prohibition followed.
It is provided by section 1175, Crawford & Moses' Dig., that a suit against an officer shall be brought in the county of his residence, and plaintiff contends that this suit falls within said section of the statute and should have been brought in Sebastian county, where he resides.
Defendant's position is that the suit for damages on account of the injury received at the hand of plaintiff's deputy was properly instituted in Conway county under the second subdivision of section 1165, Crawford & Moses' Dig., which is as follows: "An action against a public officer for an act done by him in virtue or under color of his office, or for a neglect of official duty * * * must be brought in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose."
In support of defendant's position, the case of Edwards v. Jackson, 176 Ark. 107, 2 S.W. (2d) 44, was cited. In the Edwards Case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. West
...v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988 and Humphrey v. Ownby, Mo.App., 104 S.W.2d 398, are to the same effect; while in Williams v. Priddy, 188 Ark. 137, 64 S.W.2d 553, the statement of facts is so meager that we are unable to determine whether or not the deputy was performing a duty devol......
- Williams v. Priddy