Opinion ID: 1149598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mississippi Long Arm Statute

Text: Section 13-3-57, in relevant part, declares Any non-resident person, firm, general or limited partnership, or any foreign or other corporation not qualified under the constitution or laws of this state as to doing business herein, 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. Any such non-resident is declared amenable to suit in Mississippi in any actions or proceedings accrued or accruing from such act or acts, or as an incident thereto, ... . [Emphasis supplied] This latter clause will acquire significance below. The Long Arm Statute specifically addresses the power of a Mississippi court to gain in personam jurisdiction over a foreign executor or administrator: Any such cause of action against any such nonresident, in the event of death or inability to act for itself or himself, shall survive against the executor, administrator, receiver, trustee, or any other selected or appointed representative of such nonresident.       The doing of such business, or the engaging in any such work or service in this state, or the making of such contract, or the committing of such tort in this state, shall be deemed to be a signification of such nonresident's agreement that any process against it or its representative which is so served upon the secretary of state shall be of the same legal force and effect as if served on the nonresident at its principal place of business in the state or country where it is incorporated and according to the law of that state or country. Miss. Code Ann. § 13-3-57 (1972 & Supp. 1989) [emphasis supplied]. The use of the word representative (1) encompasses executors and administrators of an estate and (2) contemplates that the actions of a decedent during his lifetime which would have rendered him amenable to suit here will similarly subject his administrator or executor (i.e. his personal representative) to in personam jurisdiction in Mississippi. Such a view is consonant with the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, § 358 (1971) which declares: An action may be maintained against a foreign executor or administrator upon a claim against the decedent when the local law of the forum authorizes suit in the state against the executor or administrator and (a) suit could have been maintained within the state against the decedent during his lifetime because of the existence of a basis of jurisdiction other than mere physical presence, or (b) the executor or administrator has done an act in the state in his official capacity. Determinations of whether a defendant is doing business within the state proceeds on an ad hoc basis. Miss Cal 204, Ltd. v. Upchurch, 465 So.2d 326, 330 (Miss. 1985); S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379, 382 (Miss. 1971). Our review of jurisdictional issues is essentially de novo: In making this determination, this Court is in the same position as the trial court, since all facts are set out in the pleadings or exhibits, and the chancellor may be reversed if he erred whether the error was manifest or not. Miss Cal, 465 So.2d at 330. The record reflects that (1) Speaks was a native Mississippian, although he was a citizen of Tennessee at all times relevant hereto. (2) Speaks had incorporated Consolidated Enterprises, Inc. as a Mississippi corporation  this corporation was Ritter's employer. (3) Speaks had entered into a partnership, S & S Enterprises, which conducted business in Mississippi and owned land near Sardis, Mississippi. (4) He was a principal stockholder of Consolidated Agri Leasing, a Tennessee corporation which is qualified to do business in Mississippi and which in fact does conduct business here. Speaks was doing business in Mississippi in the sense that he did various acts here for the purpose of realizing a pecuniary benefit or otherwise accomplishing an object. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 35, Comment a (1971). Though his domestic and business residences were in Memphis, Speaks' presence within Mississippi was of such a continuing and substantial a nature that we regard him doing business here within the meaning and contemplation of Section 13-3-57. We are told that in personam jurisdiction over Speaks' Estate must nevertheless fail for lack of a sufficient nexus between Speaks' Mississippi activity and the Ritters' claim. The long arm statute requires no direct nexus to the non-resident's business done here, only that the claim be incident thereto. The statute thus requires far less than that the liability generating conduct have occurred in Mississippi. Here we focus upon Consolidated Enterprises, Inc., a Mississippi corporation, organized by Speaks and of which Speaks was the principal shareholder. Consolidated is engaged in the business of leasing dairy cows to farmers and has an office in Columbus, Mississippi. Speaks was a director and officer  an employee, if you will  of the corporation which paid him a salary. Consolidated Enterprises also employed Ritter. Speaks' and Ritter's trip to Missouri (though not necessarily to Joplin) was on behalf of Consolidated. The fatal crash occurred before their return to Memphis. On these facts, we hold the Plaintiffs Ritter's claim to have arisen out of facts sufficiently incident to business done by Speaks in Mississippi that Speaks' estate is amenable to suit here under Section 13-3-57.