Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. 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.
Ozark Supply Co. v. Glass
Citations: 261 Ark. 750; 552 S.W.2d 1; 1977 Ark. LEXIS 2145Docket: 76-416
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 6, 1977; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Appellant Ozark Supply Company initiated a lawsuit against Dr. Sam Machara, Dr. John Ferguson, and Owen Glass, partners in the Circle T. Cattle Company, claiming they owed money for veterinary supplies purchased by Glass with the other partners' authorization. Ozark Supply, an Arkansas corporation based in Benton County, alleged that Machara, a California resident, had consented to these purchases while in Arkansas for cattle-raising activities, whereas Ferguson was claimed to be a resident of Bald Knob, Arkansas, and Glass a resident of Perryville, Arkansas. In their response, Machara and Ferguson acknowledged Machara's residency but disputed Ferguson's Arkansas residence, asserting he also lived in California. Glass contested the summons served in Perry County, which was granted on the basis that the venue was improperly established in Benton County, as no defendants resided or were served there. The court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that venue statutes generally require actions on contracts to be filed in the defendant's county of residence. Although appellant argued that the 'long-arm' statute allowed for venue based on service of process in the county from which it originated, the court clarified that such service does not dictate venue, which remains dependent on the defendant's residence. The court highlighted the primary policy that defendants should only face lawsuits in their home counties, unless specific statutes indicate otherwise. Jurisdiction and venue are distinct concepts, often confused in legal contexts. Jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear and decide a case involving the parties, based on their presence or proper service of process. In contrast, venue relates to the appropriate location for a trial. Arkansas law clarifies that the 'long-arm' statute pertains to jurisdiction, not venue, allowing courts broad powers, including extraterritorial service of process. Venue in Benton County may apply if specific defendants are named, but the cumulative venue statute does not override existing venue laws. The court emphasizes that venue statutes are designed to maintain specific local policies, such as requiring real property disputes to be heard in the property's county, and sees no indication that the legislature intended to alter these established venue principles. The judgment is affirmed.