404 PHILCO-FORD CORP. P. HOLLAND, JUDOE [261 PHILCO-FORD CORPORATION v. Judge John G. HOLLAND 76-408 548 S.W. 2d 828 Opinion delivered April 4, 1977 (Division II) 1. CORPORATIONS - FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, ACTIONS AGAINST - VENUE STATUTES, EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER REQUIRED. — Foreign corporations must be treated the same as domestic corporations regarding the venue of law suits. 2. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, ACTIONS AGAINST - VENUE STATUTES, CONSTITUTIONALITY OF - EQUAL PROTECTION REQUIRED. - Since Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-605 (Repl. 1966) requires that a suit against a domestic corporation must be brought in the county where the corporation has its principal office or place of business, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-619 (Repl. 1962), which authorizes the bringing of suits against foreign corporations in the county in which the plaintiff resided at the time the cause of action arose, is unconstitutional in that it discriminates against foreign corporations in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Petition for writ of prohibition to the Sebastian Circuit Court, Writ granted.
ARK.I PIIILCO-FORD CORP. V. HOLLAND, JUDGE 405 Griffin Smith, for petitioner. Gean, Gean & Gean, for respondent. DARRELL HICKMAN, Justice. The only issue in this case is the constitutionality of an Arkansas statute permitting a nonresident corporation to be sued in a contract action in the county where the plaintiff resides. The lower court overruled Philco-Ford Corporation's motion to quash service and from that order, Philco-Ford, the petitioner, requests a writ of prohibition against the circuit judge from proceeding further. Philco-Ford is a non-resident corporation which has an agent for service in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It has no principal place of business or chief officer in the State. It was sued in Sebastian County, Arkansas by the respondent, a plaintiff-resident of that county, pursuant to a venue statute which reads as follows: Contract actions against a non-resident of this state or a foreign corporation may be brought in the county in which the plaintiff resided at the time the cause of action arose. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-619 (Repl. 1962). We have said, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held, that foreign corporations must be treated the same as domestic corporations regarding the venue of law suits. See Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 260 Ark. 874 (1977). Power Manufn cturing C'ompnny v. caunders, 974 IJS. 490 (1927)- The respondent in this case argues that the Power case was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Starnes, 425 U.S. 637 (1976). The Starnes case did not overrule the Power case. The Starnes case involves a Texas venue statute and the court found that the Texas law did not really discriminate against foreign corporations but treated them substantially the same as domestic corporations. Arkansas law does not permit a domestic corporation to be sued in a contract action in the county where the plaintiff
406 [261 resides at the time the cause of action arises. The suit must be brought in the county where the corporation has its principal office or place of business, or where the chief officer resides. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-605 (Repl. 1966). Therefore, we hold that Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-619 (Repl. 1962) is unconstitutional in that it discriminates against foreign corporations in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Writ granted. We agree: HARRIS, C. J., and FOGLEMAN and ROY, ll.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.