ARK.] COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF SOUTHEAST 1143 ARKANSAS V. O'NEAL. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF SOUTREAST ARKANSAS V. O'NEAL. 4-4635
Opinion delivered Ma r y 3, 1937. 1. STATUTES—CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES.—Act No. 70 of the Acts 1935 providing that process may be served upon the driver of the trnck applies only to actions for damages to persons or their property occasioned by the negligent operation of motor buses, coaches or trucks and does not apply to actions for damages sustained by drinking a bottle of Coca-Cola. 2. PRocEss—ACTIoNs—sERvICE, OF FROMM—Appellant with its only place of business in J. county was sued in G. county for damages sustained in drinking' a * bottle of Coca-Cola containing a dead. spider, by serving process on appellant's truck-driver while in G. county delivering its bottled goods. Held the service was insUffi; cient to support a personal judgment against appellant.. Appeal from Grant Circuit Court; H. B. Means, Judge; reversed.
1144 COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF SOUTHEAST [193
ARKANSAS V. 0 'NEAL. Sid J. Reid and Rowell, Rowell <6 Dickey, for appellant. HUMPHRRYS, J. This suit was filed on July 25, 1936, in the circuit court of Grant county by appellee against appellant to recover damages he sustained from drinking a part of a bottle of Coca-Cola, containing 'a spider, which soft drink was manufactured and placed upon the market by appellant without having inspected and discovered the foreign substance contained therein, or through a negligent inspection thereof. A sumnions was issued and served npon appellant's truck driVer in Sheridan, Grant county, on the date the complaint 'Was filed. It is agreed that apPellant had nO agent or place of bUsiness in Grant county, its place of business being in . Pine Bluff, Jefferson county. At the time the summons waS served oii appellant's truck driver he waS 'engaged in delivering Coca-Cola to customers in Sheridan, from its place of basiness in 'Pine Bluff. Appellant specially appeared in the circuit court of Grant county, and moved to quash the service, which motion was overruled by tbe court over the objection and exception of appellant, ' The 'Sufficiency of the . service *as' raiSed at every material step throughout the Progress of the trial, which trial resulted in a personal judgment against appellant for $750, from which is this appeal. Service was attempted under act 70 of the Acts of the General ASsembly of 1935. That act has no: aPplication to suits of this character. It applies only to actions for damages to persons or their property occasioned by the negligent operation of motor buses, coaches or trucks on the highways of this state. The act relied upon by ap-pellee to justifY the rendition of the personal judgment against apPellant in the instant case' was construed by this ,court in the case of Coca-Cola Bettling Company of Southwest Arkansas v. Bacon, awte, p. 6, 97 S. W. (2d) 74, and, under the construction placed upon said act; the service in this case was insufficient to support thefl personal judgment rendered against appellant.
ARK.] 1145 The judgment is, therefore, reversed,*and the Case i's remanded with instruetions to sustain the motion to quash the service: By appealing the case to this court appellant ha g hOt entered its appearance, Anheuser-Busch, NC., V. 'Manion, ante, p. 405, 100 S. W. (2d) 672.
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.