Court Opinion

ID: 9669264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:46:27.078418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:50.032226
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority because I think that there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial judge. Appellee alleged that he did not, at any time material, transact any business in this state or contract to supply services or things in this state and was not subject to service of process. Whenever the trial judge decides any fact question, in a law case, either interlocutory or preliminary to trial, his decision will be sustained on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to support it. Rome v. Ahlert, 231 Ark. 844, 332 S. W. 2d 809. Whenever the law makes a circuit judge the trier of the facts, the same presumption attends his finding as when a jury is waived by the parties, and when the finding is sustained by substantial evidence it is conclusive on appeal. Cady v. Pack, 135 Ark. 445, 205 S. W. 819; Creekmore v. Scott, 179 Ark. 1113, 20 S. W. 2d 177; Little River County v. Buron, 165 Ark. 535, 265 S. W. 61; Matthews v. Clay County, 125 Ark. 136, 188 S. W. 564. The principal issue before the court was whether appellee was transacting business in the state in the sense of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2502 C 1 (A) (Supp. 1969). The only evidence before the court was the affidavits of the respective parties. Neither party objected to this procedure or to the admissibility of any statement in the affidavit of the other. If conclusions were stated, they were entitled to be considered as evidence in the absence of objection. Nelson v. Busby, 246 Ark. 247, 437 S. W. 2d 799; Insured Lloyds v. Mayo, 244 Ark. 802, 427 S. W. 2d 164; Judy v. McDaniel, 247 Ark. 409, 445 S. W. 2d 722. Pertinent parts of appellee’s affidavit were: 1. My name is W. B. Dunavant, Jr. I am an individual residing in Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, and I am a member of the firm of W. B. Dunavant & Co. which does a cotton business in the City of Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee. Said firm is a partnership composed of W. B. Dunavant, Jr., and others and has been engaged in the business of buying and selling cotton in the City of Memphis, Tennessee, since the year 1960. That this defendant has no independent business of his own nor does he engage in the cotton business as a proprietor of W. B. Dunavant & Co. 2. That neither W. B. Dunavant, Jr., nor W. B. Dunavant & Co., a partnership, have an interest in, use, or possess real property in the State of Arkansas nor did they, during the times pertinent to the motion in question. 3. That the contract which is the basis of this suit was executed in the City of Memphis, Tennessee, by W. B. Dunavant & Co. and was negotiated in the first instance by Brian Kelley, who was an independent cotton broker and merchant in Earle, Arkansas, and who did business as such with W. B. Dunavant 8c Co. and presumably with other persons and firms who were engaged in the same or similar businesses. 4. That neither affiant nor W. B. Dunavant 8c Co., a partnership, maintain any offices in the State of Arkansas, nor do they have any agents in the State of Arkansas, nor did they have any offices or agents at any time or times material to this motion. While the allegations of this affidavit were controverted by appellant’s affidavit, the trial judge was confronted with conflicting evidence as to the status of Kelley. If he accepted Dunavant’s version Kelley acted as an independent broker in negotiating with Arkansas farmers, and not as an agent of Dunavant, who said he had no agents in Arkansas at any time material to the motion. I consider this affidavit to be substantial evidence of the facts therein stated so that we cannot say that appellee was transacting any business in this state through Kelley. The facts that Kelley was compensated by Dunavant after the contracts were entered into ana that Kelley, after having negotiated with the Arkansas farmers, presented them with contracts on Dunavant’s stationery are merely evidence of agency, but not necessarily controlling on the fact question. We made it quite clear in Tomlinson Chair Mf. Co. v. Jop-Pa Mattress Co., 122 Ark. 566, 184 S. W. 32, that a broker who was not an employee of a wholesaler of merchandise, but who negotiated sales between the wholesalers and merchants, receiving compensation from the wholesaler by way of commission, and who dealt with other wholesalers, giving orders to whichever one he deemed proper, was not the agent of the wholesaler.1  I agree that the test for transacting business in the state under the Interstate and International Procedure Act is far different from the “doing business” test of earlier statutes. Yet, when the actions of Kelley are eliminated, I cannot see how it can be said that Dunavant was either transacting business in Arkansas or contracting to supply services or things in Arkansas. The contract was presented to and signed by Dunavant in Tennessee. It became a Tennessee contract. Goode v. Universal Plastics, Inc., 247 Ark. 442, 445 S. W. 2d 893. Dunavant did absolutely nothing in Arkansas and did not contract to do anything in Arkansas. Appellant relies upon the fact that the cotton to be bought by Dunavant was to be planted, produced, ginned and delivered in Arkansas. Yet none of this was to be done by Dunavant, and the “delivery” would be to the Federal Compress and Warehouse Company’s warehouse in Wynne, not to Dunavant. The samples were to be delivered to Dunavant in Memphis, Tennessee. Dunavant was to be billed upon warehouse receipts issued for this cotton. The “long-arm” act should be liberally construed. The Commissioners’ note stated that it should be given the same expansive interpretation intended by the draftsman of the Illinois act and given by the courts of that state. I agree, but I do not believe that the courts of Illinois would give the act the same expansive application as the court is giving here. See Grobark v. Addo Machine Co., 18 Ill. App. 2d 10, 151 N. E. 2d 425, aff’d 16 Ill. 2d 426, 158 N. E. 2d 73 (1959); Orton v. Woods Oil & Gas Co., 249 F. 2d 198 (7th Cir. 1957); Saletko v. Willys Motors Co., Inc., 36 Ill. App. 2d 7, 183 N. E. 2d 569 (1962); Tommills Brokerage Company v. Loeb, Rhoades & Company, 411 F. 2d 764 (7th Cir. 1969). I also doubt the establishment of the requisite “minimal contacts.” I would affirm the judgment. I am authorized to state that Jones, J., joins in this dissent.   The question was raised by the wholesaler by asserting that the broker had no authority to employ subagents.