Ex Parte Snoddy

7 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Peabody Galion Co.

    497 So. 2d 1126 (Ala. 1986)   Cited 8 times
    In Peabody, this Court found that an independent corporation, acting as a distributor of products for another corporation, was an "agent" for the purpose of venue, because it was a "means" by which the principal corporation did business.

    "The proper venue for an action against a foreign corporation is controlled by Code 1975, § 6-3-7, which provides that `A foreign corporation may be sued in any county in which it does business by agent.' This section augments, and is consistent with, Ala. Const. 1901, Art. XII, § 232, which provides that a foreign corporation `may be sued in any county where it does business, by service of process upon an agent anywhere in the State.'" Ex parte Snoddy, 487 So.2d 860, 861 (Ala. 1986). Peabody argues that, because of the language of the Code and the Constitution, venue in Macon County is not proper as to Peabody.

  2. In re Paulk

    722 So. 2d 171 (Ala. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    Also, on original submission, I concluded that the second prong of the proviso, "does business by agent," has been interpreted by this Court as "was doing business [by agent] in that county at the time the suit was filed." Ex parte Snoddy, 487 So.2d 860, 861 (Ala. 1986) (Maddox, Jones, Almon, Shores, Beatty, and Adams, JJ., concurring in the per curiam opinion). I joined Chief Justice Torbert's dissent, but the majority opinion created a rule that was not without precedent: Ex parte McGugin, 423 So.2d 1367 (Ala. 1982); Bolton v. White Motor Co., 239 Ala. 168, 194 So. 510 (1940).

  3. Lowry v. Owens

    621 So. 2d 1262 (Ala. 1993)   Cited 13 times
    Discussing evidence that the defendant had placed advertisements reasonably calculated to reach Alabama residents on an Alabama radio station and on Mississippi radio and television stations that broadcast into Alabama

    In short, I think that the "sufficient contacts" rule for service of process is not appreciably different from the "doing business" rule that is applied in determining the venue of an action against a foreign corporation. In Ex parte Snoddy, 487 So.2d 860 (Ala. 1986), this Court held that a moving company that openly and publicly offered its moving services for hire in a county, through advertisements in the yellow pages, was doing business in that county for venue purposes. The activities of the automobile dealership here seem to be just as pervasive as, if not more than those proved in Snoddy.

  4. Ex Parte Miltope Corp.

    522 So. 2d 272 (Ala. 1988)   Cited 8 times

    " ' Ex parte Reliance Insurance Co., 484 So.2d at 417, quoting Ex parte Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 435 So.2d 1235, 1237 (Ala. 1983). See, generally, Ex parte Snoddy, 487 So.2d 860 (Ala. 1986). "As early as 1899, in determining whether a corporation's activities amounted to 'doing business,' this Court found that the sale of the corporation's products was as much an 'exercise of . . . corporate functions' as was the manufacture of the products.

  5. Ex Parte Alpine Bay Resorts, Inc.

    518 So. 2d 113 (Ala. 1987)   Cited 4 times

    We hold that the activities of Alpine Bay are insufficient to support a finding that Alpine Bay was "doing business" in DeKalb County for venue purposes. This case presents a situation distinguishable from that presented in Ex parte Snoddy, 487 So.2d 860 (Ala. 1986). In Snoddy, the Court held that venue in an action against a moving company was proper in a county in which the moving company had "held itself out as doing business" by offering its moving services for hire through an advertisement in the yellow pages of the telephone directory for that county. The advertisement through the mail by Alpine Bay of the availability for sale of time-share units at the Talladega County resort does not constitute doing business by "holding itself out for business" in DeKalb County.

  6. Ex Parte Finance America Corp.

    507 So. 2d 458 (Ala. 1987)   Cited 89 times

    Ex parte Jim Skinner Ford, Inc., 435 So.2d 1235 (Ala. 1983). An examination of our cases applying these rules, Ex parte Peabody Galion Co., 497 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1986); Ex parte Snoddy, 487 So.2d 860 (Ala. 1986); Ex parte Joiner, 486 So.2d 402 (Ala. 1986); Ex parte Reliance Ins. Co., 484 So.2d 414 (Ala. 1986); Ex parte Wilson, 475 So.2d 562 (Ala. 1985); Ex parte Southtrust Bank of Tuskegee, 469 So.2d 103 (Ala. 1985), convinces me that this is the most tenuous set of facts upon which we have determined venue. The admissible evidence in this case shows that the defendant purchased, apparently from Allstate Storm Windows, nine credit sales contracts executed by residents of Macon County.

  7. Ex Parte Joiner

    486 So. 2d 402 (Ala. 1986)   Cited 12 times

    Ex parte Reliance Ins. Co., 484 So.2d 414 (Ala. 1986). See also, Ex parte Snoddy, 487 So.2d 860 (Ala. 1986). Furthermore, there is no authority in this state allowing a change of venue for the convenience of the parties, the witnesses, or the court, which is permitted in federal courts under the doctrine of "forum non conveniens."