Court Opinion

ID: 9699173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:12:17.830954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:46.503556
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
SIMPSON, Justice.
' In brief in support of his application for rehearing, able attorney for appellant insists that he and co-counsel for appellant are each shocked and dismayed by the foregoing decision. Counsel impugns the opinion as unsound and inadequate and asks the court to explain the result reached therein.
The only phase of counsel’s rehearing argument which we deem worthy of response relates to the continued insistancé that the trial court erred in refusing to transfer the cause from the Bessemer Division to the Birmingham Division. We previously wrote that there was no er-. *513ror in the denial of this motion, but perhaps confused appellant as to the reason for this conclusion by noting that “the notes were payable in Bessemer and default on them occurred there”. We were aware then and are still aware that this is not a suit on the original notes payable to appellee and signed by J. E. Milam Construction Company, Inc. We are aware that this is a suit for alleged breach of contract against Seaboard Surety Company which the jury found had agreed to pay the appellee an amount of money which J. E. Milam Construction Company, Inc. owed to appellee, evidenced by notes payable in Bessemer. With this understanding, was the suit properly brought in the Bessemer Division?
The act creating the Bessemer Division and providing for holding terms of the circuit court in Bessemer was first enacted in 1893. This act has since been amended several times, the last amendment having been made in 1943. Local Acts, 1943, p. 106. Section 2 of this act (as in the prior acts) defines the territorial jurisdiction of the Bessemer Division, as follows:
“The said Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, holding at Bessemer, as in this Act provided, shall have, exercise and possess, all of the juridiction and the powers which are now or may hereafter be conferred by law on the several circuit courts of this state, which said jurisdiction and powers shall be exclusive in, limited to, and extend over that portion of the territory of the County of Jefferson, which is described as follows *
This section of the act was considered by this court in Ex Parte Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 243 Ala. 508, 10 So.2d 746, cited in the original opinion. There it was expressly decided that:
“The purpose of our several legislative acts providing for holding terms of the circuit court at places other than the county seat is for the convenience of the people in the district defined by statute. In the Act before us, as construéd by this court soon after its passage, this convenience was deemed to be best conserved by giving exclusive jurisdiction of civil suits based upon causes of action arising in the Bessemer District, and limited to causes of action arising therein. The act does not deal with what suits may properly be brought in Jefferson County under the general venue laws of Alabama. * * * The statute before us deals with the venue as between divisions of the circuit court, each with like jurisdiction over the subject matter, but held at different places in the county.” (Emphasis added.)
Keeping in mind that the general venue laws should not be construed into this statute, then, where did the cause of action here sued on “arise” ? The appellant argues that if at all, the cause of action arose where the alleged contract was made, i. e. Birmingham. Appellee, on the other hand, insists that the cause of action arose in the Bessemer Division, notwithstanding that the alleged contract was made in Birmingham; the debt was owed in Bessemer and that payment was to be made in Bessemer.
At 92 C.J.S. Venue § 80, p. 776, speaking of statutes fixing venue as the county “where the cause of action arises” it is noted:
“A cause of action, within the meaning of statutes fixing the venue as the county where the cause of action arises has been said to consist of a duty on the part of one toward another and the violation or breach of that duty, or of plaintiff’s primary right and the act or omission of defendant. * * * It arises when that is not done which should have been done, or that is done which should not have been done. * * * the cause of action accrues in the county in which defendant’s wrongful act was done.”
Relating these general principles to the case at hand, it seems reasonable to us to agree with the trial court that here the cause of action “arose” within the meaning of the Bessemer Division Act within the *514Bessemer Division. The appellee if entitled to payment at all, was entitled to payment there. The original debt was owed and payable there. The breach, if any, it seems to us occurred there, since performance was to be had there. The mere fact that the alleged contract was made in Birmingham does not seem to us to mean that a cause of action thereon could not occur elsewhere. In fact, to adopt the position urged by appellant would be to say that if the contract was made in Birmingham and if it indeed called for 'complete performance in Bessemer and if the performance never took place, yet nevertheless an action for breach of that contract would have to be brought-in Birmingham. We do not think the law requires that result. We are clear to the conclusion that in this case the cause of action “arose” where the breach occurred, i. .e. where performance was called for and failed to take place.
We hope that this clarifies our original thinking. Being convinced of the soundness of the original opinion on other points raised in application for rehearing, we do not re-write to them.
Opinion extended'and application for1 rehearing overruled. '
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.