Court Opinion

ID: 9537833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:25:26.583237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:04.049425
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Justice
(dissenting).
As authority for granting writ of prohibition herein, the majority opinion relies upon our decisions in City of McAlester v. Fogg, Okl., 312 P.2d 867 (1957); Cushing v. Coryell, Okl., 400 P.2d 174 (1965); and Chris Well Servicing Co. v. Coryell, Okl., 435 P.2d 610 (1967). The rule announced in these cases, as stated in City of McAlester, 312 P.2d p. 871, is:
“ * * * venue of actions against multiple joint defendants, lies only in the county or counties meeting the requirements of all applicable specific venue statutes and that, when such requirements have been met, the action is ‘rightly brought’ so that under the authorization of 12 O.S.1951 § 154 summons shall be issued to any other county or counties for service upon those defendants as to whom venue would have otherwise been fixed, 12 O.S.1951 § 139.”
It should be noted that all three cited authorities involved domestic corporations and the construction of 12 O.S.1961, § 134. As was stated in the majority opinion, § 134 has now been amended (12 O.S.1970 Supp. § 134) to make the announced rule inapplicable to domestic corporations.
In my dissenting opinion in City of Mc-Alster, I attempted to grace the decisional and statutory history which persuaded me to dissent. In Chris Well Servicing, I expanded upon the history and gave further reasons why I would decline to hold that § 134 was a specific venue statute governing over the general venue statute, 12 O.S. 1961, § 139. Rather, I would have held that where a domestic corporate defendant is joined as a defendant in an action brought in a county other than that in which its principal office is located or in which the cause of action or some part thereof arose or where its officers reside or may be summoned, etc., and where the court has venue of some one of the other defendants, natural or corporate, then such domestic corporation is amenable to such suit and should be required to respond to summons issued out of such court.
The rule first announced in City of Mc-Alster and followed in Cushing and Chris Well Servicing, which rule was in my opinion doubtful in its inception and which, as I believe, has now been expunged by statute, should not be extended to apply to foreign corporations. In my opinion, the specific venue provisions of § 135 and § 137, 12 O.S.1961, do not control over the general venue statute, 12 O.S.1961, § 139.
I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that BLACKBIRD, J., agrees with the views expressed in the foregoing dissenting opinion.