ARK.] MEEKS V. WAGGONER: 189 • MEEKS V. WAGGONER. 4-3985 , . :Opinion delivered July 1, 1935. VENUE—tRAN'SITORY ACTION.—Where geveral defendants, alleged to. be jointly liable for a tort, are. sned . in a' county in Which one of • them is duly summoned; the. Court acquires jurisdiction of all the defendants, under Crawford. & Moses'. Dig., §.1176. Prohibition to LohOke- Circuit' Court ; W. J. Wag-yoner, Judge; -Writ denied. . . . Trimble., Trimble (f. McCrary, for. petitioners. • John R. Thompson . and TV. P. Beard; for respondent. .McHANir, J. On Jannary 11, .1935, Ethel E: 'Smith and' her hu§band, J.. C. W. Smith, 'filed an action in the Lonoke Circuit Court againt the Magnolia' . Petrolenm Company, a foreign 'corporation, and againSt the petiL tioners, Jim'Meeks and EWell Smith, to 'recover damages, for personal injuries alleged' to haVe been sus.tairied.bY the plaintiff, Ethel Smith, caused by their joint riegli-' gence *in painting • a' strip across the sidewalk adjacent to a' filling station, in the City of Little • Rock,- owned' by the 'Magnolia Petroleum C n omp y a . and operated by -the petitioners ag servants • *and employees; • -in that ' she tepped upon the wet paint on the sidewalk, slipped,-fell and 'was• injured -therebY. : Service . -was had upon the Magnolia Petroleum Company Lonoke'CountY bY -delivering a copy of • -the 'SurnMOn8 to' its' agent tfiorein. Service was had upon the petitioners in Pulaski'County, they being residents and citizens , thereof. •Thereafter, in -apt tiMe, they appeared in7 the -Lonolie Circuit -Court,. especially for the 'pUrpoSe; filed their motion. to quash the service had uPon them and ob te je d c • to the! jurisdictiOn -of the court on -thi gronnd: The • court. overruled t-he motion to quash -the •service; and . held that it-had jurisdiaion of the Parties.- They thereafter filed their, petition in this court • for a -writ .Of prohibition against. W: J. Waggoner, judge of Lonoke 'Circnit Court, in. which they alleged want -ef Proper service uPon them and lack of jurisdiction- of -the person of the Petitioners* by the Lonoke Circuit Court.
190 MEEKS V. WAGGONER. [191 Plaintiffs and petitioners are all residents of Pulaski County and the Magnolia Petroleum Company, the other defendant to the action, has its principal Ark-ansas office and place of :business in Little Rock in said county. However, the latter is a foreign corporation, doing business in Lonoke County,. and bas an agent and place of business therein. It seems to be conceded that the MagnOlia Petroleum Company has . been properly served with process, in Lonoke County, and it is not a party to thiS proceeding. The petitioners contend with some degree , of force and justice that, since they are residents of Pulaski County, and since plaintiffs in the action in Lonoke County are also reSidents of Pulaski . Connty, and since all the witnesses reside in Pulaski County, and the. Magnolia Petroleum Company has . its • .principal office and place of business in said county, the action should have , been brought in Pulaski County where all the parties . reside, and they should not be compelled to go out of the county of their, residence to defend the action. , . The: Legislature however prescribes the venue of actions and the manner of serving summons upon -defendants,- and with the wisdom of its action in such matters the courts have nothing to do.. After. prescribing the venue of actions in many particular cases, it is provided by § 1176, Crawford & Moses' Digest, as follows :."Every other action may . be brought .in any county in which the defendant, or one. of- several .defendants, resides, or is summoned." • The joint defendant, Magnolia PetrOleum -Company, has been properly served in Lonoke County, 'therefore,* under the plain provisions of § 1176, the petitioners were properly brought into the action in the Lonoke Circuit Court. One of the three defendants was properly summoned in Lonoke County. Therefore the venue was properly laid as to the other defendants, petitioners herein. As said by Mr. Justice FRAUENTHAL in Werni-mOnt v. Stdte,.101 Ark. 210, 142 S. W. 194, quoted with approval in Seetbinder v. Witherspoon, 124 Ark. 331, 187 S. W. -325 : "It is the policy , and spirit of our law, enacted into statute by our Legislature, that every de-
ARK..] MEEKS V: WAGGONER.-191 fendant shall be sued in the township or county of his residence. To this general principle there are statutory exceptions, chiefly in cases where there is a joint liability against two or more defendants, residing in different counties. In such cases it is provided that suits may be brought in the county of the residence of any of the defendants, . and service • of summons can .be had upon the other defendants in any county, thereby giving jurisdiction ()Vet . -their persons to the court wherein the 'suit is thus instituted. Kirby's Digest, §§ 6072 and '4558. But, , before this jurisdiction can he acquired by virtue of these statutes over . the.person of such defendants • nonresident of the county, wherein the suit is instituted, it is essential that the defendant resident of the county where the snit is broUght shall be a bonafide defendant. By our *statute, it is fiirther provided that, before judgment can be bad against such nonresident defendants, a 'judgment must be obtained against the, resident defendant. Kirby's Digest, § 6074." . In Metzger v. Mann, 183 , Ark. 40,' 34 S.* W. (2d) 1069, Metzger was served in -Faulkner*Comity. Other defendantS; nontesidellts of 'PrilaSki County, entered their appearance in the . action. We held that Metzger' was not properly 'served because the joint defendants did not reside, and wore -not summoned in Pulaski' County, having entered their appearance only. The situation is different here. While the*Magnolia Petroleum CoMPany. may not be ' said . to' reside in Lonoke County, it ‘was per.- sonallY 'summoned there,* and • this gave the 'court Jurisdiction of the petitioners; residents of Pulaski County. See . also the recent Case of Arkansas Democrat•i7. Means, 190 Ark. *948, .82 S. W: •.(2d) 256. • • Other cases cited by counsel for petitioners, are-not in point, and•we,thinit it would serve no useful-purpose to • distinguish them in this opinion. • Suffice it to say that; under the plain provisions of said § 1176, Crawford & Moses' 'Digest, the Lonoke Circuit Ceurt acquired Jurisdiction of. petitiohers by. service in that county on one of the alleged, joint•tort-feasors. The writ 'will ' be 'denied. •
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.