Title: Ex Parte McGugin

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

423 So. 2d 1367 (1982)
Ex parte John McGUGIN, et al.
(Re BARRETT MOBILE HOME TRANSPORT, INC., et al. v. John McGUGIN, et al.)
80-870.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 19, 1982.
Rehearing Denied April 9, 1982.
Joseph C. McCorquodale, III of McCorquodale & McCorquodale, Jackson, for petitioners.
John W. Cooper, Mentone, for respondents.
MADDOX, Justice.
The plaintiffs in this case received a jury verdict in the amount of $3,536.00 in the Circuit Court of Clarke County on claims of breach of contract and negligence. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court, because it determined *1368 that the Circuit Court of Clarke County lacked proper venue to decide the case. The plaintiffs then petitioned this Court for writ of certiorari, asking us to review the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals that the plaintiffs could not properly pursue this claim in Clarke County. They claim that the decision conflicts with our prior decisions.
The facts as set out in the opinion rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals are as follows:
Article 12, § 232, Constitution of Alabama, 1901 states the following:
Section 6-3-7, Code of Alabama, 1975, states:
In interpreting § 10471, Code of Alabama, 1923 (which was the predecessor of § 6-3-7, Code of Alabama, 1975), this Court stated:
Bolton v. White Motor Co., 194 So. 510, 239 Ala. 168, 171 (1940).
We determine that Barrett was doing business in Clarke County on September 1, 1976, the date on which the plaintiffs brought their suit. Barrett was in the business of moving mobile homes and had contracted to move the mobile home of the plaintiffs. The mobile home which the parties had contracted to have moved and which Barrett had undertaken to move was still in Clarke County on September 1, being stored by Stewart at Barrett's request. The contract was still in effect on September 1, 1976.
This Court cannot adopt a policy that would allow a foreign corporation qualified to do business in Alabama, upon the occurrence of any problem which might arise during the performance of a contract, to remove all of its agents from that county and thereby force a person injured or damaged to sue the corporation in the county of the corporation's choosing. The traditional notions of fair play prevent a determination which would create such an injustice, especially when the claim of injury arises out of the business done in the county.
This finding is in no way dispositive of all of the issues raised by Barrett on his appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. It is only to say that, under the facts presented, this action could have been, and was properly, brought in the Circuit Court of Clarke County. The Court of Civil Appeals erred in saying that it was not.
The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is hereby reversed and the cause remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals for disposition not inconsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, EMBRY, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
TORBERT, C.J., concurs specially.
TORBERT, Chief Justice (concurring specially).
The maintenance of a lawsuit against a foreign corporation that is qualified to do business in Alabama is prohibited by the Alabama Constitution in a county where that corporation is not doing business. The Alabama Constitution provides in pertinent part:
Ala.Const. art. XII, § 232.
For the plaintiff to maintain the suit in Clarke County, Barrett must have been doing business by agent in that county at the time the suit was filed. Bolton v. White Motor Co., 239 Ala. 168, 194 So. 510 (1940).
We today hold that Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc. was, by virtue of an executory contract, doing business in Clarke County. I concur in the Court's judgment, but only because of the determination that, as a matter of fact, Barrett was doing business by agent in Clarke County at the time the suit was filed.
An agency is determined by facts and not by how the parties characterize their relationship, and the real character of the relationship is not affected by an agreement that no agency exists or that some other relationship does. Semo Aviation, Inc. v. Southeastern Airways Corp., 360 So. 2d 936 (Ala.1978). The fundamental factor in determining whether an agency relationship exists is whether the principal has a right of *1371 control over his agent. It is not essential that the right of control be exercised, so long as that right actually exists. Wood Chevrolet Co. v. Bank of the Southeast, 352 So. 2d 1350 (Ala.1977). Here it has been determined that there was an agent of Barrett doing business in Clarke County.
In August, 1976, plaintiff McGugin entered into a contract with Barrett to move his mobile home from Clarke County to Mobile, Alabama. Williams, an agent of Barrett, was to inspect and move the mobile home pursuant to the contract. After being prepared for transit, the mobile home was attached to Williams's truck and pulled onto the highway where the injury occurred. At this time, Williams contacted Barrett's district manager in Birmingham, Alabama, who subsequently came to inspect the damage. While neither Barrett nor Williams offered to repair the damaged trailer or to move it back to its original location, Barrett did contact Sol Stewart, the owner of a local mobile home dealership, to look at the damage, to determine what caused the injury, and to move the damaged mobile home to his lot in Clarke County for storage until Barrett could determine what action should be taken. The damaged mobile home was still located on Stewart's lot when this action was commenced.
There is no dispute that Williams was an agent of Barrett and that Barrett has yet to perform on the contract. Yet, neither of these facts as a matter of law leads to the conclusion that Barrett was doing business by agent in Clarke County. For Barrett to be doing business in Clarke County at the time the suit was filed, some agent must have been present within that county. The trial court has determined that this was the case. From the evidence presented, it can be surmised that when the mobile home became damaged and its possession was transferred from Williams to Stewart at Barrett's direction, then the agency relationship was likewise transferred. Though no express agreement of an agency existed, by the actions of the parties the trial court could reasonably have found that Barrett either had control over or the right to control Stewart as a special agent in relation to the mobile home and as to any subsequent action taken on the original contract, and thus that Barrett was doing business by agent in Clarke County. For this reason I agree that the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals is due to be reversed and the cause remanded.