General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Home Loan & Finance Co.

120 So. 165, 218 Ala. 681, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 386
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 8, 1928
Docket8 Div. 962.
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 120 So. 165 (General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Home Loan & Finance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Home Loan & Finance Co., 120 So. 165, 218 Ala. 681, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 386 (Ala. 1928).

Opinions

Appellant was a foreign corporation, and was sued in this case for conversion of two automobiles, alleged to have occurred in Madison county, Alabama. Appellant pleaded in abatement that it was a foreign corporation, and at the time suit was filed it had a known place of business in Alabama, to wit, Birmingham, and that it was not doing business by agent in Madison county at the time the cause of action arose, nor at the time the suit was begun. Plaintiff demurred to this plea.

This court in the case of Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. McGuire, 201 Ala. 203, 77 So. 729, held that under section 232 of the Constitution, the venue of a tort action against a foreign corporation is in a county where it was doing business when the suit was begun, and not in the county where the tort was committed. See, also, Ex parte Western Union Tel. Co.,200 Ala. 496, 76 So. 438.

There is no requirement of law that, to entitle defendant to the benefit of this plea, it must allege that it had a known place of business in Alabama at the time the cause of action arose. This is wholly immaterial.

Upon the foregoing authorities it is apparent that the plea in abatement was in good form, and not subject to the demurrer.

Appellee answers by contending that after such demurrer was sustained, plaintiff amended by adding additional counts to the complaint, and that such plea in abatement was not renewed to such additional counts, and cites authorities. The cases cited do not affect this question. They do not relate to pleas in abatement, but in bar. The plea in abatement went to the right to sue appellant in Madison county. That question need be determined but one time in the trial of one case. Each amendment is not the institution of a new suit. After the court has sustained demurrer to a plea in abatement going to the venue, it is not necessary at each stage thereafter to renew the plea in abatement; further pleadings and proceedings do not waive the error. Sec. 9517, Code; Terminal Oil Co. v. Planters' W. G. Co., 197 Ala. 429, 73 So. 18; Steele v. Booker,205 Ala. 210, 87 So. 203. *Page 683

For the error of the court in sustaining demurrer to appellant's plea in abatement, the case must be reversed. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider other assignments of error.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

On Rehearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ex Parte Ted's Game Enterprises
893 So. 2d 376 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2004)
Ex Parte Illinois Cent. Gulf Rr Co.
537 So. 2d 899 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
Vandergriff v. Southern Ry. Co.
537 So. 2d 904 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc. v. McGugin
423 So. 2d 1367 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1982)
Ex Parte McGugin
423 So. 2d 1367 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1982)
City Stores Company v. Williams
252 So. 2d 45 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1971)
Pepperell Manufacturing Co. v. Alabama National Bank
75 So. 2d 665 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)
Royal Ins. v. All States Theatres, Inc.
6 So. 2d 494 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1942)
Bolton v. White Motor Co.
194 So. 510 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
Pittman v. Johnson
185 So. 753 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
May v. Strickland
180 So. 93 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Parker v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
170 So. 333 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Ex Parte Kemp
168 So. 147 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Alabama Warehousing Co. v. Hyatt
154 So. 313 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1934)
Ford Motor Co. v. Hall Auto Co.
147 So. 603 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
&198tna Life Ins. Co. v. Copeland
147 So. 206 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1933)
Tennessee Valley Oil & Gas Co. v. Martin
140 So. 429 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Murphy v. Southern Surety Co. of New York
134 So. 685 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1931)
Armour Fertilizer Works v. Cox
129 So. 320 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 So. 165, 218 Ala. 681, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-motors-acceptance-corp-v-home-loan-finance-co-ala-1928.