{
  "id": 1524386,
  "name": "W. T. Adams Machine Company v. Castleberry",
  "name_abbreviation": "W. T. Adams Machine Co. v. Castleberry",
  "decision_date": "1907-12-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "573",
  "last_page": "575",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ark. 573"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "69 Ark. 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723895
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/69/0429-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 Ark. 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898692
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/39/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ark. 593",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1327686
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/59/0593-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 Ark. 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1499105
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/77/0412-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ark. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723511
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/69/0396-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ark. 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723895
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/69/0429-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 4098,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.703,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.597607117119017e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6832967868010837
    },
    "sha256": "9250e175c99da4477515d1900c1dd47b3e4e2ea98c680b1667c695f7118a48a5",
    "simhash": "1:2715a12868422f86",
    "word_count": 698
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:28.525494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. T. Adams Machine Company v. Castleberry."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hart, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) We are met at the threshold of this case by the contention that the return of service on the summons shows no sufficient service.\nThere is no allegation in the complaint as to whether appellant is a partnership, a foreign or domestic corporation. There is an averment, in the motion to quash service of summons, that appellant is a foreign corporation, and has an agent at Plummerville, Arkansas, upon whom service should be had, and this allegation is nowhere denied in the record. The summons was served, as shown by the return, upon \u201cT. W. Barnes, agent.\u201d Barnes was only a traveling salesman. He had no control over the business of the corporation, and service upon him -was not sufficient. Arkansas Construction Company v. Mullins, 69 Ark. 429; Lesser Cotton Company v. Yates, 69 Ark. 396.\nThe answer of the defendant, in the form and manner in which it was made, was not a waiver of the service of summons upon it. Spratley v. La. & Ark. Ry. Co., 77 Ark. 412; Union Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Craddock, 59 Ark. 593; Baskins v. Wylds, 39 Ark. 347.\nThis view of the case renders it unnecessary to notice the other contentions made by appellant.\nJudgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to proceed in the cause; the appellant having entered his appearance by appealing in this cause.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hart, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. B. Pryor, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. T. Adams Machine Company v. Castleberry.\nOpinion delivered December 23, 1907.\n1. Foreign corporation \u2014 service oe process on agent. \u2014 Service of process upon a travelling salesman of a foreign corporation, having no control over the business of such corporation in the county, is not sufficient to give jurisdiction. (Page 574.)\n2. Process \u2014 objection\u2014waiver.-\u2014Where defendant moved to quash the service of summons upon its agent,- and thereafter answered, without waiving its rights under the motion, the objection to the service of process was not waived. (Page 573.) ,\nAppeal from Scott Circuit Court; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge, on exchange of circuits;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nSuit was brought by appellee against appellant in the Scott Circuit Court to recover damages for misrepresentations made by an agent of appellant in the sale of a saw mill to appellee. A summons was duly issued, and made, returnable at the next term of the court. On the 2d day of the August, 1906, term of court, to which the summons was returnable, the defendant obtained permission to appear specially for the purpose of filing a motion to quash service of summons. The order 'of the court (omitting the caption) is as follows :\n\u201cComes the defendant, W. T. Adams Machine Company, by its attorney, T. N. Sanford, and asks to be permitted faj appear specially for the purpose of filing motion' to quash the service of the summons herein, which is by the court granted. Whereupon defendant files motion to quash service of summons herein. Motion overruled, and defendant excepts.\u201d\nThe grounds of the motion are as follows:\n\u201c1. Because said W. T. Adams Machine Company is a foreign-corporation, and has an agent at Plummerville, Arkansas, upon whom service should be had.\n\u201c2. Because T.- W. Barnes is not such an agent as service of summons can be properly had on.\u201d\nThe return indorsed on summons is as follows: \u201cState of Arkansas, County of Scott: I have this 14th day of April, 1906, duly served the within by delivering a copy and stating the substance thereof to the within-named T. W. Barnes, agent of the said within named machine company, as herein commanded. '(Signed) G. W. Grandstaff, Sheriff.\u201d\nAppellant then, without waiving its right under its motion to quash service of summons, answered, denying the allegations of the complaint. There was a jury trial, and a verdict for appellee in the sum of two hundred dollars. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, and one of the grounds therefor was that the court erred in overruling its motion to quash service of summons. The motion for a new trial was overruled, and the case is brought here by appeal.\nT. B. Pryor, for appellant.\nThe motion to quash service of summons should have been sustained. 69 Ark. 429."
  },
  "file_name": "0573-01",
  "first_page_order": 595,
  "last_page_order": 597
}