Opinion ID: 1860025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: International Shoe Controls

Text: Thus I would have Mississippi remain within the ranks of the majority of the states in interpreting our long-arm statute to reach the limits allowed by the constitution, 27 A.L.R.3d 397, 403, 418, as was established in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). [1] Indeed, in other contexts, we have already done so. In Jones v. Chandler, 592 So.2d 966 (Miss. 1991), the plaintiff was an unwed mother who filed a paternity and support action against a Tennessee resident, alleging that he was the father of her child. The author of the majority in the case sub judice (Justice James L. Robertson), writing for this court, first determined that our long-arm statute, sec. 13-3-57, could be used to compel the defendant to appear in Mississippi and defend the action: ... Section 13-3-57's catchall  do any business or perform any character of work or service in this state  is so broad that it belies any suggestion it be limited to commercial activities. The states' legal long arms commonly take statutory form, but this does not have to be. It is a fact of history that state courts once took an unfortunately restrictive view of their powers over non-residents. See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1877). Recognizing that the interests of their citizens required more, the legislatures of the several states stepped forward and provided what are commonly known as long-arm statutes, but there is no reason on principle or power why the courts could not have done the same thing. There is no reason why the existence of these long-arm statutes should be taken to preclude the courts' common law lawmaking powers absent, of course, legislative expression to the contrary. To suggest that long-arm amenability rules may be only statutory in form and legislative in source is to confuse the familiar with the necessary and thus fall into fallacy. Jones v. Chandler, 592 So.2d at 971 (emphasis added). The author of today's majority then cited Chenier v. Chenier, 573 So.2d 699, 702 (Miss. 1990) for the proposition that our courts may exercise jurisdiction over non-residents, within the confines of International Shoe, absent any specific legislative directive to the contrary. As authority for this proposition, he wrote that Chenier specifically accepts that the legal rule rendering the non-resident amenable to suit here is non-legislative in source and non-statutory in form. Chandler at 971 (quoting Chenier, 573 So.2d at 702) (emphasis added). Chandler then goes on to say: ... We find power in the public policy expression in the last paragraph of our general long-arm statute, Miss. Code Ann. sec. 13-3-57... . Chandler, 592 So.2d at 971. Likewise we find power in sec. 13-3-57 (Supp. 1991), wherein it is stated that any non-resident person, general or limited partnership, or any foreign or other corporation ... who shall do any business or perform any character of work or service in this state, shall by such act or acts be deemed to be doing business in Mississippi and shall thereby be subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state. (Emphasis added). Thus the statute on its face would authorize jurisdiction over any person or corporation with the minimum International Shoe contacts within this state. To arbitrarily say that this court has the authority to hale an (alleged) father into our court system against his will, but that we do not have the authority to haul a nonresident corporation into court here, when the nonresident corporation has more than sufficient minimum contacts so as not to offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, would be hypocritical. I have also concluded that our court does not have any problems under the International Shoe test because Southern Pacific does do substantial business in Mississippi, could reasonably expect to be haled into court here, and such action would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington . Southern Pacific transports cargo across Mississippi in trains and in trucks, and the company has business relationships with at least 42 Mississippi companies, firms with which it regularly does business for a profit. This is an adequate connection between the defendant and the state for our courts to exercise jurisdiction over Southern Pacific. International Shoe, supra .