You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Rutledge Industrial Corp. v. Talladega Foundry & Machine Co.

Citations: 551 So. 2d 948; 1989 Ala. LEXIS 468Docket: 88-592

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; June 23, 1989; Alabama; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, Rutledge Industrial Corporation sought a writ of mandamus to compel the transfer of a civil action from the Circuit Court of Talladega County to the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, asserting improper venue. The defendant, an Alabama-based corporation involved in manufacturing, had contracted the plaintiff, a Delaware corporation, to produce specific parts in Talladega County. The plaintiff filed a suit in Talladega Circuit Court seeking a monetary judgment for work completed and services rendered. The defendant's motion to transfer the case was denied based on Code 1975, § 6-3-3, which stipulates that actions related to work and labor can be initiated in the county where the work was performed. The court concluded that since the work was conducted in Talladega County, the venue was appropriate. Consequently, the petition for the writ of mandamus was denied, and the case remained in Talladega Circuit Court, with the ruling supported by Justices Maddox, Jones, Shores, and Houston.

Legal Issues Addressed

Mandamus to Compel Venue Transfer

Application: The petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the transfer of venue was denied because the court found the venue proper under the governing statute.

Reasoning: Rutledge Industrial Corporation sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Jerry L. Fielding to transfer a civil action from the Circuit Court of Talladega County to the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, arguing that venue was improper in Talladega County. [...] Consequently, the petition for the writ of mandamus was denied, with Justices Maddox, Jones, Shores, and Houston concurring.

Venue Appropriateness under Code 1975, § 6-3-3

Application: The legal principle that an action related to work and labor must be initiated in the county where the work was performed was applied to affirm venue in Talladega County.

Reasoning: The defendant's motion to transfer the case was denied on the grounds that the work was performed in Talladega County, as per Code 1975, § 6-3-3, which allows for actions related to work and labor done to be initiated in the county where the work occurred.