Opinion
No. 27400.
October 29, 1928.
1. DISCOVERY. Court could order plaintiff, foreign corporation, to permit inspection and taking of copies by defendant of plaintiff's books and papers ( Hemingway's Code 1927, section 759).
Under Code 1906, section 1003 (Hemingway's Code 1927, section 759), court could make order requiring plaintiff, a nonresident corporation, to permit inspection and taking of copies by defendant of certain books and papers in plaintiff's possession, containing evidence relating to merits of suits, since statute relates to all litigants irrespective of residence, and permits litigant to obtain information which, except for statute, he might be compelled to resort to bill of discovery in order to obtain.
2. COURTS. Foreign corporation, by instituting suit, submitted itself to court's jurisdiction, and must abide by court's orders regarding inspection of books, etc.
Plaintiff, a corporation domiciled in another state, by instituting suit, submitted itself to jurisdiction of court, and must abide by court's orders relating to inspection and taking of copies of its books and papers.
APPEAL from circuit court of Simpson county; HON.W.L. CRANFORD, Judge.
J.P. and A.K. Edwards, for appellant.
Cited: Equitable Assurance Society v. Clark, 80 Miss. 471, 31 So. 964.
R.C. Russell, for appellee.
Cited: Citizens Bank of Hattiesburg v. Tracy, 82 So. 307; Robertson, State Revenue Agent, v. Greenwood Lumber Co., 90 So. 487.
The appellant, a corporation domiciled in the state of Iowa, sued the appellee on several promissory notes executed by him to the Brenard Manufacturing Company, and now owned by the appellant. The appellee filed a motion under section 1003, Code of 1906 (section 759, Hemingway's 1927 Code), for an inspection and the taking of copies by the appellee of certain books and papers in the possession of the appellant alleged to contain evidence relating to the merits of the suit. This motion was sustained, and an order made accordingly. The appellant declined to comply with this order, and, on motion of the appellee, its suit was dismissed, from which order it has brought the case to this court.
The appellant's contention is that the order is void, for the reason that the statute does not apply to nonresidents, but to persons only who reside within the jurisdiction of the court.
There is no merit in this contention. The statute applies to all litigants, irrespective of residence, and simply permits one litigant to obtain from another, by order of the court in which the litigation is pending, information which, except for the statute, he might be compelled to resort to a bill of discovery in order to obtain. The appellant submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court by instituting its suit, and must abide by the court's orders.
Affirmed.