Wisconsin Brick and Block Corp. v. Cole, 81-107
| Decision Date | 19 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-107,81-107 |
| Citation | 274 Ark. 121,622 S.W.2d 192 |
| Parties | WISCONSIN BRICK AND BLOCK CORP., Petitioner, v. John W. COLE, Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Moses, McClellan & McDermott by Harry E. McDermott, III, Little Rock, for petitioner.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by Rodney E. Slater, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for respondent.
Malvern Brick and Tile Company, an Arkansas corporation, filed suit against petitioner, Wisconsin Brick and Block Corporation, in Hot Spring County alleging breach of contract. Wisconsin Brick had been ordering bricks from Malvern Brick for a twenty-year period and on this occasion either called or mailed in the order. The bricks were to be sent "F.O.B. plant, car" which meant that Malvern Brick completed performance of the contract when it loaded the bricks on a railroad car at its plant. When the bricks arrived at their destination Wisconsin Brick would not accept them because they were damaged. After Malvern Brick filed suit, Wisconsin Brick's attorney made a special appearance to deny personal jurisdiction. The Hot Spring circuit judge, respondent here, granted Wisconsin Brick's motion to dismiss. Malvern Brick than filed a motion for rehearing and, upon rehearing, the motion to quash service was denied. Wisconsin Brick then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from hearing the suit, alleging lack of personal jurisdiction.
Prohibition will not lie unless the trial court is clearly without jurisdiction or has clearly acted without authority and the petitioner is clearly entitled to such relief. Karraz v. Taylor, 259 Ark. 699, 535 S.W.2d 840 (1976). The purpose of the writ is to prevent a court from exercising a power not authorized by law when there is no other adequate remedy available. Streett v. Roberts, 258 Ark. 839, 529 S.W.2d 343 (1975). It is never issued to prohibit an inferior court from erroneously exercising its jurisdiction but only where the inferior tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction, or is proposing or threatening to act in excess of its jurisdiction, Richards v. Maner, Judge, 219 Ark. 112, 240 S.W.2d 6 (1951).
The personal jurisdiction of this cause of action turns upon whether the activities of Wisconsin Brick were sufficient to satisfy the "minimum contacts" test and whether these activities came within the Arkansas long-arm statute. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27-2502(C)(1)(a) (Repl.1979) states that:
A court may exercise personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akin v. First Nat. Bank of Conway, CA
... ... Jagitsch v. Commander Aviation Corp., 9 Ark.App. 159, 655 S.W.2d 468 (1983) (citing ... Wisconsin ... Brick & Block Corp. v. Cole, 274 Ark. 121, ... ...
-
Hotfoot Logistics, LLC v. Shipping Point Mktg., Inc.
...808 S.W.2d 314 1991). Whether the “minimum contacts” requirement has been satisfied is a question of fact. Wisconsin Brick & Block Corp. v. Cole, 274 Ark. 121, 622 S.W.2d 192 (1981). The case of SD Leasing, Inc. v. Al Spain & Assocs., 277 Ark. 178, 640 S.W.2d 451 (1982), illustrates how a s......
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Morrow Land Valley Co.
...2012 Ark. 36, 386 S.W.3d 439;John Norrell Arms, Inc. v. Higgins, 332 Ark. 24, 962 S.W.2d 801 (1998); see also Wis. Brick & Block Corp. v. Cole, 274 Ark. 121, 622 S.W.2d 192 (1981) (the issue of whether sufficient minimum contacts exist is a question of fact); Ratliff v. Thompson, 267 Ark. 3......
-
Steve Standridge Ins., Inc. v. Langston
...the activities of a party satisfy the "minimum contacts" test, a writ of prohibition should be denied. In Wisc. Brick & Block Corp. v. Cole, 274 Ark. 121, 622 S.W.2d 192 (1981), we Whether the "minimum contacts" test has been satisfied is a question of fact. In cases where jurisdiction depe......