Court Opinion

ID: 9772681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:26:16.130332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:46.964528
License: Public Domain

STORCKMAN, Judge
(dissenting).
I readily agree, as stated in the majority opinion, that State ex rel. Stamm v. Mayfield, Mo., 340 S.W.2d 631, is not controlling on the facts of this case. Stamm involved a foreign insurance company which was specifically exempted from the provisions of Chapter 351, RSMo 1959, V. A.M.S. What was said in the Stamm case regarding the application and construction of § 351.375, subd. 4 and related sections was not necessary to the decision, but the question is now squarely before the court.
I am unable to convince myself that State ex rel. O’Keefe v. Brown, 361 Mo. 618, 235 S.W.2d 304, State ex rel. Whiteman v. James, 364 Mo. 589, 265 S.W.2d 298, and the majority opinion in this case correctly apply and construe § 351.375, subd. 4. Therefore, I am constrained to state as briefly as possible my views before lapsing into the silence becoming one who is compelled but not convinced.
As to the construction of the provision in question, I agree with the reasoning in the dissenting opinion of Judge Hyde, concurred in by Judge Ellison, in State ex rel. Whiteman v. James, 265 S.W.2d loc. cit. 301, and its conclusion that § 351.375, subd. 4 “only adds another office (the registered office) to those where service can be made and venue established.”
First the problems relating to the application of subd. 4 of § 351.375 to various kinds of corporations should be noted briefly. By express provision, domestic and foreign corporations are treated separately in Chapter 351. Section 351.015(1) provides that the term “corporation” as used in the chapter does not apply to foreign corporations unless the context so requires. Section 351.375 applies to domestic corporations but does not by its terms include foreign corporations. The O’Keefe case involved a Missouri corporation but there was no showing that it had an office in Dade County where it was sued or that there was any attempt to serve it as a resident of that county. The ground of venue, under a special statute relating to motor carriers, was that the corporation operated in the county. This is comparable to the right to sue a corporation in the county where the cause of action accrued under § 508.040. Such provisions apply to suits against the corporation alone but are not sufficient to justify bringing in nonresident defendants under § 508.010(2). State ex rel. Henning v. Williams, 345 Mo. 22, 131 S.W.2d 561, 565[7]; Heifer v. Hamburg Quarry Co., 208 Mo.App. 58, 233 S.W. 275, 277[1]; State ex rel. Bartlett v. McQueen, 361 Mo. 1029, 238 S.W.2d 393, 395-396 [3]. It was unnecessary in the O’Keefe case to decide the application and construction of § 351.375 because a conflict between that section and § 508.010(2), as interpreted in *352State ex rel. Henning v. Williams, 345 Mo. 22, 131 S.W.2d 561, was not presented.
The Whiteman case involved a foreign corporation to which § 351.375 was not applicable unless made so by the cross-reference in § 351.625. This subject is treated in the Stamm case, 340 S.W.2d loe. cit. 633-634, and will not be repeated here.
This phase of the overall problem is mentioned to demonstrate the difficulty of applying the new provision within constitutional limitations. On the face of the statutes referred to, the new provision would apply to domestic corporations but not to foreign corporations or insurance companies, domestic or foreign, the latter being exempted from the coverage of these sections of the chapter. As to general and business corporations, however, acceptable uniformity might he attained under § 351.-575 which provides in substance that a foreign corporation shall enjoy the same, but no greater rights and privileges than a domestic corporation and shall be subject to the same duties and restrictions. The problems of applying the statute have not been discussed or decided by the cases.
The important thing, of course, is the interpretation of subd. 4 of § 351.375 and its effect upon § 508.010 and related statutes. Hence a reference to the status of the venue laws at the time the new provision was adopted may be helpful.
Prior to the enactment of § 351.375 in 1943, all questions of residence and venue involved in the present case had apparently been settled by State ex rel. Henning v. Williams, 345 Mo. 22, 131 S.W.2d 561, which was an original proceeding in prohibition to prevent the respondent judge from exercising jurisdiction in a personal injury case on the ground that the venue was improper as to the individual defendant joined with a corporate defendant. The case involved a construction of clause 2 of § 720, RSMo 1929, which was part of the general venue statute and read then as now: “When there are several defendants, and they reside in different counties, the suit may be brought in any such county.” See Section 508.010(2), RSMo 1959, V.A. M.S. The court posed the question for decision as follows, 131 S.W.2d loe. cit. 562: “So the question is whether a foreign corporation licensed to do business in this state and having an office and place of business in some county is a resident of that county for the purposes of service under clause 2 of Sec. 720.” Emphasis supplied.
After considering and discussing the cases and cognate statutes, the court held that a foreign corporation, for the purpose of service under the general venue statute, is a “resident” of any county in which it has an office and place of business, stating 131 S.W.2d loe. cit. 565 [8]: “But all these decisions and the statutes cited show that a licensed foreign corporation must have one or more residences in the state where it is open to service. If that is so; and if under Sec. 723, supra, [now § 508.040]' when foreign or domestic corporations are sued alone, the venue of actions against them is in ‘any county where such corporations shall have or usually keep an office or agent for the transaction of their usual and customary business,’ we can see no reason why their residences should not be regarded as established in the same way when, perchance, they are joined as defendants with another, thereby fixing the venue under Sec. 720 [now § 508.010].” Emphasis supplied.
State ex rel. Columbia National Bank of Kansas City v. Davis, 314 Mo. 373, 284 S.W. 464, cited and referred to in Hen-ning as “an exhaustive banc decision” also held that § 508.010(2), then § 1177, applied to all defendants including corporations sued with natural persons or other corporations, and that corporations may have a residence the same as do natural persons. 284 S.W. loc. cit. 470[9, 10].
In view of these Missouri decisions involving the precise question of the residence of corporations under venue statutes here involved, the reliance of the majority opinion upon the Kansas case of Kimmerle v. City of Topeka, 88 Kan. 370, 128 P. 367, *353seems unnecessary and likely to be misleading in this and future cases especially in view of quotations made from the opinion without relation to the facts. The Kim-merle case involved a statute which provided that city commissioners could not adopt a resolution to pave or improve a city street unless it had on file a petition “signed by the resident owners of not less than one-half of the feet fronting or abutting upon such street”. The question involved was whether a nonresident railroad corporation was a “resident owner” within the meaning of the statute. Moreover, the case recognizes that whether a corporation is considered a resident of a particular place depends upon the connection in which the case arises and the purposes of the statute involved. If authorities from other states need to be consulted, we should first go to the decisions of Illinois since our corporation code follows rather closely the Illinois Business Corporation Act as it existed prior to 1943. 17 V.A.M.S., pp. 299-301. But primarily the provision in question should be construed in the light of Missouri statutes and Missouri decisions pertaining to venue and corporate residence.
The first part of § 3S1.375 deals with the manner in which a registered agent or the address of a registered office may be changed. The last sentence of subd. 4 of this statute is the provision with which we are here concerned; it reads as follows: “The location or residence of any corporation shall be deemed for all purposes to be in the county where its registered office is maintained.” The O’Keefe and Whiteman cases seem to regard the provision as if it reads “for all purposes of venue”, but it does not have that effect. At best, venue is only one of several purposes involved. Service of summons, taxation, and attachment might be among other purposes intended. The word “all” modifies “purposes” and not the various items involved. In the present case, the sentence should be considered as if it read: “The location or residence of any corporation shall be deemed for the purpose of venue to be in the county where its registered office is maintained.” The language of the provision standing alone falls short of precluding any other location or residence for the purpose of venue and service of summons.
The disjunctive “or” in the phrase “location or residence” indicates that the location and residence terms are used as alternatives and more or less interchangeably. So far as I can discover, the word “location” does not appear anywhere in the new corporation code adopted in 1943; but it does appear in the previous statutes. Section 5011, RSMo 1939, provides that among other things the articles of incorporation shall set forth the corporation’s “permanent place of location”. Section 5009 provides the manner in which a corporation may “change its location from the county in which it is located to some other county in the state.” Thus “location” under previous statutes was in legal effect a place of corporate residence. Prior to the new code, a foreign corporation qualifying in this state was required to file a sworn statement setting forth among other things the principal office or agent in Missouri and the address where legal service may be obtained upon it by serving such agent and to maintain an office or place in the state where legal service may be obtained upon it. Sections 5074 and 5072, RSMo 1939.
These provisions, however, were not held to be preclusive of the other venue and service statutes then in force. On the contrary, it was held that a foreign corporation upon being licensed in Missouri becomes domesticated to an extent and “must have one or more residences in the state where it is open to service.” State ex rel. Henning v. Williams, 345 Mo. 22, 131 S.W.2d 561, 564-565[5-9]. Under the new code, the registered office and the registered agent are substituted for the location and the principal office and agent previously provided. The new provisions are more clear cut and uniform, but I can find no intent to make a radical change in the venue laws.
*354Subdivision 4 of § 351.375 must be construed in connection with other venue statutes such as § 508.010(2) which provides that “when there are several defendants, and they reside in different counties, the suit may be brought in any such county.” The applicable rules of construction are well known. Practically all of the rules that we need to consult are stated in State ex rel. Columbia National Bank of Kansas City v. Davis, 314 Mo. 373, 284 S.W. 464, 469. That case was also concerned with construing and correlating venue statutes. In general the rules stated in Columbia National Bank are: Statutes should not be construed so as to render another statute meaningless unless the legislative intent to do so is clearly expressed; acts relating to venue generally and to venue against corporations should be construed together as in pari materia though enacted at different times and as parts of different statutes; all acts relating to the same subject and having the same general purpose should be read together as constituting one law; apparently conflicting statutes should be harmonized and effect given to each so far as reasonably possible, and it will not he presumed that the general assembly intended to repeal an earlier statute or leave contradictory enactments on the statute books; and statutes should not be construed as enacting a scheme of venue in civil cases not covering all possible situations unless the plain language of each is susceptible to no other construction. These rules of construction are approved and applied generally. See 92 C.J.S. Venue § 5, p. 675.
Applying these and other applicable rules of construction, I can only conclude that the legislative intent was to make sure that another place of venue and service was designated or continued as it was under the prior law; it was not the legislative intent to destroy the effectiveness of clause 2 of § 508.010 as it had been interpreted and construed in the Henning case. This, I believe, is the purport of the dissenting opinion in State ex rel. Whiteman v. James to which I refer for a more succinct and better presentation than I have made here.
Section 351.380 provides that the registered agent of a corporation “shall be cm agent of such corporation upon whom any process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served upon a corporation may be served.” Emphasis added. This does not say that the registered agent is exclusively the person upon whom the summons shall be served; in fact the section also provides that nothing therein contained shall limit or affect the right to serve process in any other manner permitted by law.
Under the view of the majority opinion, corporations, by a judicious choice of a registered office, will be given greater control over the place where they can be sued with other defendants, corporate or individual. Also under the majority view what would the situation be if the registered office is not maintained or the office of the registered agent becomes vacant for any reason as is contemplated by §§ 351.375 and 351.625? In such cases, the statutes provide the means to change registered offices and agents, but there is no provision for an alternate venue if the corporation neglects to do so, unless the venue provided by subd. 4 is in addition to the provisions of §§ 508.010 and 508.040.
It seems unlikely that the legislature intended to create greater disparity between insurance and business corporations in matters of venue. Yet this is what happens under the holding of the majority opinion since insurance companies are specifically exempted and hence liable to be sued as they were before. State ex rel. Stamm v. Mayfield, Mo., 340 S.W.2d 631. The result is that § 508.010(2) is amended by § 351.375(4) with respect to business corporations but not as to insurance companies. Further, the subdivision should be construed in the spirit of Art. Ill, §§ 40 and 41, of the Missouri Constitution, V.A. M.S., which provides that the general assembly shall not pass any local or special law changing the venue in civil or criminal *355cases. For discussions of the possibilities of this, see State ex rel. Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Gantt, 274 Mo. 490, 203 S.W. 964, 968 [4], and 969, the concurring opinion.
I am convinced that there is nothing radically wrong with our venue statutes if they are properly construed. In their very nature, venue statutes cannot be uniformly convenient and satisfactory to all litigants. Hardship cases, although infrequent, invoke concern, but the remedy for these would be the right to transfer to a more convenient forum. The federal courts have the power under the doctrine of forum non conveniens to transfer cases to alleviate inconvenience. This could be done in Missouri but would require legislation which, if enacted, might also include authority to transfer to the proper county a case brought in the wrong jurisdiction. See State ex rel. Boll v. Weinstein, 365 Mo. 1179, 295 S.W.2d 62, 66 [9], This would save time, money and sometimes the cause of action.
For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.