« AnteriorContinuar »
8 7429. The Same Subject Continued. But in Montana the place of trial of an action against a railroad corporation, for personal injuries sustained by its employé, will not be changed from the county in which the accident occurred, on the ground that the de fendant's principal place of business is in another county. So, in Louisiana, suits against railroad companies for damages may be brought in the parish where the damage was done, or the injury received.' So, in Texas where the cause of action is a fraud committed by the corporation through its agent, the action is properly brought within the county where the fraud was committed, and where the agent resides, although otherwise the corporation may have no residence in that county.' So, under the Code of Civil Procedure of Kansas, an action against a foreign railroad company for personal injuries may be brought in the county within the State where the road is operated and where the injuries occurred, although the defendant is merely a lessee. So, in Georgia, a statute providing that railroad corporations shall be suable in the counties in which injuries shall be committed, is subject to no constitutional objection;" and an action against a railroad company for refusal to issue a through bill of lading over its own line and a connecting road, must be brought in the county where the refusal occurred or the defendant resides. The provision of the Nebraska Code, authorizing the bringing of an action against an insurance company in any county where the cause of action or some part thereof arose, is remedial, and not restrictive in its nature; and the action may be brought where the cause of action or some part thereof arose, although the company has no agent in that county. Under section
· Oels v. Helena &c. Co., 10 Mont. 17 Ga. 323. So much of the Georgia 524; 8. C. 26 Pac. Rep. 1000.
statute (Ga. Code, $ 3320) as makes a : Houston v. Vicksburg &c. R. Co., railroad company liable to be sued in 39 La. An. 796; 8. C. 2 South. Rep. the county where an injury is in562.
flicted by the running of cars, includes • First Nat. Bank v. Turner (Tex.), an injury inflicted by the running of 15 8. W. Rep. 710. See 1 Sayles Tex. hand-cars. Thomas v. Georgia R. &c. Civ. Stat., art. 1198, 97. In this case Co., 38 Ga. 222. the corporation was a co-defendant, 6 Coles v. Central R. &c. Co., 82 and the action was brought in the Ga. 149; 8. C. 9 S. E. Rep. 127. county of the plaintiff's residence. ? Neb. Code, g 55.
• Hannibal &c. R. Co. v. Kanaley, • Insurance Co. v. McLimans, 28 39 Kan. 1; 8. c. 17 Pac. Rep. 324. Neb. 653; 8. C. 44 N. W. Rep. 991. Davis v. Central Railroad &c. Co.,
73 of the Civil Code of Kentucky,' an action against a common carrier for a personal injury cannot be brought in a county which is neither the residence of any of the parties, nor the place where the injury was done.'
8 7430. Where the Cause of Action Accrues. The stat. utes of several of the States permit an action to be brought against a corporation in the county where the cause of action accrued. Under such a statute, it has been held that a cause of action against a life insurance company, under a policy for the payment of indemnity in the event of death, accrues within the county where the assured died, although the contract of insurance may have been made in another county.
$ 7431. Validity of Statutes Making Corporations Suable in Any County. - Stated generally, there can be no doubt that a statute making a corporation, having a residence within the State for the purposes of jurisdiction, suable in any county in the State, does not deprive the corporation of any rights guaranteed by the Federal or by any State constitution,' though there may be contrary provisions in recent State constitutions. It has been held that a constitutional provision declaring that corporations "shall have the right to sue, and shall be subject to be sued in all courts in all cases as natural persons," has no reference to the subject of venue in civil actions, which belongs only to the remedy or form of procedure; and that it does not inhibit the passage of a general law authorizing a corporation to be sued in any county in which
i Which reads as follows: "An action against such carrier for an injury to a passenger, or to other person or his property, must be brought in the county in which the defendant, or either of several defendants, resides, or in which the plaintiff or bis property is injured; or in which he resides, if he resides in a county into which the carrier passes."
• Sherrill v. Chesapeake &c. R. Co., 89 Ky. 302; 8. C, 12 S. W. Rep.
465. Similarly, see Harper v. New-
• Such was Wagn. Mo. Stat. 294,
• Rippstein v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 86.
* Davis v. Central R. &c. Co., 17 Ga. 323; Home Protection v. Richards, 74 Ala. 466.
• Const. Ala., art. 14, $ 12.
it transacts business through its agents, though an individual citizen can only be sued in the county of his residence. On the contrary, according to the reasoning of the court, such a law is based upon sound reasons, growing out of the difference between natural and artificial persons, and does not violate the essential principles of justice, nor establish an unjust or unreasonable discrimination against corporations."
§ 7432. Local Actions. - By the principles of the common law, any action founded upon a local thing must be brought in the county where the cause of action arises." Actions which are local by the principles of the common law, are not rendered transitory by permissive statutes, enacting that when one of the parties to an action is a corporation other than a county, town, school district, or parish, “ the action may be brought in any county in which such corporation shall have any established or usual place of business," etc., "or if the other party to such action is a natural person, the action may be brought in the county where such party lives.”
' Home Protection o. Richards, 74 contract, or for words, and the like Ala. 466; Mobile Life Ins. Co. o. transitory thing, it may be brought Pruett, 74 Ala. 487.
in any country, but in this case it Metcalf, J., in Vermont &c. R. ought to be brought where the inn 00. o. Orcutt, 16 Gray (Mass.), 116, is.' Anon., Godb. 42, and 1 Nels. 117; citing Com. Dig., Action,
Ab. 33. See also Williams v. Land, 6 Dane Abr. 653. The learned judge 4 Taunt. 729. So of an action for a proceeds to state the difference at nuisance by obstructing the navigacommon law between local and transi- tion of a river. Mersey & Irwell Navitory actions thus: “In other books gation Co. v. Douglas, 2 East, 502.” it is said that the venue is local when • Gen. Stats. Mass., ch. 123, 5; the cause of action could have hap- Vermont &c. R. Co. 0. Orcutt, 16 pened in one county only. Smith on Gray (Mass.), 116. Therefore, an Actions at Law (3d ed.), 79, 102; action by a railroad company for an (7th ed.) 75, 96; 15 Petersd. Ab. injury to its culvert must be brought (Amer, ed.) 241; i Chit. Pl. (6th in the county where the culvert is Amer. ed.) 298; Steph. Pl. 289; Gould situated. Ibid. So, a statute proPl., ch. 3, § 107. Thus, an action on viding that actions must be brought the case upon the custom of Eng- and tried in the county in which the land, against an innkeeper for not defendants, or some of them, reside safely keeping the goods of his guest, at the commencement of the action is local, — Clench, J., saying: 'If it (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., 8 395), has no be an action upon the case upon &
proper application to an action affect
§ 7433. Transitory Actions. - On the contrary, transitory actions against corporations follow the corporation in its de facto migrations, and may be brought wherever the corporation has a residence, for the purposes of jurisdiction.'
8 7434. Changing the Venue. Under some statutory systems, if the action is brought in the wrong county, the venue may be changed to the right county.? Where the statute requires an affidavit by the party in support of the grounds upon which a change of venue is demanded, judicial construction has adopted the conclusion that in the case of a corpora
ing land, such as a proceeding by a trict, or of the lands sought to be railroad corporation to condemn land annexed thereto, the jurisdiction may for its purposes; but the strongest as well be in the one county as in the reasons favor the conclusion that other. Mason &c. Special Drainage such an action is to be brought in District v. Griffin, 134 Ill. 330, 338; the county where the land lies. “The 8. C. 25 N. E. Rep. 995. compensation for the land sought to 1 New Orleans &c. R. Co. v. Walbe taken is to be determined upon lace, 50 Miss. 244. Thus, an action testimony, and the witnesses most to recover an indemnity stipulated competent to speak upon this subject for in a policy of fire insurance, may will usually be found in the county be brought wherever service can be referred to." California Southern had upon the corporation, and the R, Co. 0. Southern Pac. R. Co., 65 jurisdiction is not restricted to the Cal. 394. A drainage district in Illi. State within which the property was nois is a quasi-municipal corporation, situated, or the contract made, aland where it includes within its though there may be a statute in that boundaries a portion of the territory State designating the county in wbich of two counties, it is deemed to have such an action shall be brought. Ina residence, for jurisdictional pur- surance Co. v. McLimans, 28 Neb. poses, in every part of its territory, 653; 8. C. 44 N. W. Rep. 991 ; 19 Ins. and its corporate authorities are L. J. 542. So, it has been held that presumed to reside throughout its a railroad company, created under the territory. It follows that its com- laws of another State, may be sued missioners may maintain a proceed in Mississippi for a personal injury ing in the Circuit Court of a county inflicted within the territory of another than that in which it was orig- other State. New Orleans &c. R. inally organized, and in which its Co. v. Wallace, 50 Miss. 244. records are kept, for the purpose of ? See Cal. Code Civ. Proc., $ 396. enlarging its boundaries, under the Construction of this section and pracprovisions of an enabling statute. If tice under it: Jenkins v. California the action is local, either by reason Stage Co., 22 Cal. 537; Edwards v. of the locality of the drainage dis- Southern Pac. R. Co., 48 Cal. 460.
tion the affidavit must be made by an officer,' and hence it cannot be made by a mere local agent, in a case where the party demanding the change is a foreign insurance company." So, the attorney of a foreign corporation could not make the affidavit, notwithstanding the inconvenience which the rule entailed. These decisions seem to be too narrow. By analogy to what has been held, with reference to the removal of causes to the Federal courts, it would follow that any attorney or agent of the corporation, duly authorized to make the application, and personally capable of deposing to the facts, may make such an affidavit.
7435. Residence of a Corporation the Residence of its President. — In Kentucky there is a statutory rule to the effect that the residence of a corporation, which is a common carrier, is the county in which its chief officer or agent, if in the State, resides when the action is commenced.”
§ 7436. National Banks are State Corporations for Jurisdictional Purposes. — National banks are State, and not Federal, corporations, for jurisdictional purposes. Under the original national currency act they were deemed domestic, and not foreign, corporations, within the State wherein they were
· Western Bank of Scotland 0. in such a case. Other legislatures Tallman, 15 Wis. 92.
have been more provident. In Penn· Wheeler & Wilson Man. Co. sylvania, as early as 1834, a railroad 0. Lawson, 57 Wis. 400.
company might remove an action · Western Bank of Scotland 0. pending against it to another county Tallman, 15 Wig. 92.
at any time before the jury was • Post, $ 7469. Compare Market sworn; and upon the presentation of Nat. Bank 0. Hogan, 21 Wis. 317. the affidavit, required by the act, The decisions just cited from Wiscon- made by the president of the comsin illustrate the difficulties which pany, further proceedings were coram beset courts when they endeavor to non judice. Railroad v. Cummins, 8 legislate, - to supply by judicial con- Watts (Pa.), 450. struction a legislative casus omissus. • Harper v. Newport News &c. Co., The Wisconsin statute relating to 90 Ky. 359; Sherrill v. Chesapeake changes of venue did not have in &c. R. Co., 89 Ky. 302. Compare view the case where & corporation Chesapeake &c. R. Co. v. Heath, 87 might be a party, and did not make Ky, 651. any provision for changing the venue