Hinkle v. Cravens
409 S.W.2d 350, 23 McCanless 253, 219 Tenn. 253 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A corporate officer attending court in a county other than their residence for the sole purpose of testifying on behalf of the corporation is immune from service of process in a separate civil action.
Facts:
- Hassell Ray York was a resident of Cumberland County and the secretary-treasurer of Cumberland Loan & Finance Corporation, which was also located in Cumberland County.
- The corporation, acting through York, filed a civil lawsuit against Larry E. Hinkle in the General Sessions Court of Knox County.
- On May 21, 1965, the case was set for trial in Knox County.
- York traveled from Cumberland County to the Knox County Courthouse on that date, bringing corporate records with him.
- York's sole purpose for being in Knox County was to testify and represent the corporation in its lawsuit against Hinkle; he was the only corporate officer present.
- While at the Knox County Courthouse for that purpose, York was served with a summons for a new, separate lawsuit filed by Hinkle against York and two other individuals, Dr. Cravens and Dr. Lawson, for malicious prosecution.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry E. Hinkle filed suit against Hassell Ray York, Dr. Cravens, and Dr. Horace F. Lawson in the trial court in Knox County, Tennessee.
- The initial summons (leading process) was served on York in Knox County, and counterpart summonses were subsequently served on Cravens and Lawson in Cumberland County.
- All three defendants filed pleas in abatement, challenging the validity of the service of process on York.
- The trial judge sustained the pleas in abatement and dismissed Hinkle's lawsuit.
- Hinkle, as the plaintiff in error, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a corporate officer immune from service of process when attending court in a county other than their residence for the sole purpose of representing and testifying on behalf of the corporation in a lawsuit to which the corporation is a party?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Special Justice William J. Harbison
Yes. A corporate officer attending court in a county other than his residence to testify for the corporation is immune from service of process. Tennessee statutes and long-standing case law exempt witnesses and parties from service of process while attending court. This immunity was previously extended to corporate officers served while acting as witnesses in unrelated matters in Sewanee Coal, Coke & Land Co. v. Williams & Co. The court finds no reason to distinguish between an officer serving as a witness and an officer representing a party-corporation, as in both instances the individual's presence is essential for the administration of justice. Since York was in Knox County solely in his official capacity as an officer of a party-litigant, he was immune from service, and the leading process served upon him was invalid.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and extends the common law doctrine of immunity from service of process in Tennessee. By explicitly applying the immunity to corporate officers representing their company as a party-litigant, the court prevents the use of litigation as a tool to gain jurisdiction over non-residents who are only present in a county to participate in other legal proceedings. This reinforces the public policy of encouraging parties and witnesses to attend court without fear of being ambushed with unrelated lawsuits. The ruling clarifies that the immunity attaches to the function of participating in the judicial process, not merely to an individual's status as a private person.
