Reasor-Hill Corp. v. Harrison
249 S.W.2d 994 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An action for damages for injury to real property is a transitory action, and a court may exercise jurisdiction over such an action even if the property is located in another state, so long as the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Facts:
- Reasor-Hill Corporation, an Arkansas corporation, manufactured an insecticide.
- Reasor-Hill placed this chemical product on the market for sale.
- Planters Flying Service used the insecticide to spray D. M. Barton's cotton crop, which was growing on his land in the State of Missouri.
- Barton alleged that the insecticide was adulterated and its use resulted in damage to his growing cotton crop.
- Reasor-Hill Corporation is not authorized to do business in Missouri and cannot be served with a summons within that state.
Procedural Posture:
- Planters Flying Service sued D. M. Barton in the circuit court of Mississippi County, Arkansas, to collect an outstanding account.
- Barton filed a cross-complaint in the same action against Reasor-Hill Corporation for negligence causing damage to his crop.
- Reasor-Hill Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the cross-complaint, arguing the Arkansas court lacked jurisdiction over a claim for injury to real property located in Missouri.
- The trial court overruled the motion to dismiss.
- Reasor-Hill Corporation (petitioner) then petitioned the Supreme Court of Arkansas for a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from proceeding with the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Arkansas court have jurisdiction over a lawsuit seeking damages for injury to real property located in another state?
Opinions:
Majority - George Rose Smith, J.
Yes. An Arkansas court does have jurisdiction over a lawsuit for injury to real property located in another state. The court abandoned the common law local action rule, which required such suits to be brought where the land is situated, because the rule lacks a logical or equitable basis in the modern American interstate system. The court reasoned that the historical justifications for the rule—such as juries needing personal knowledge of the dispute—are obsolete. Furthermore, the modern justifications are unpersuasive between states: (1) Arkansas courts are fully capable of interpreting the laws and titles of sister states; (2) defendants can easily flee a jurisdiction to avoid a suit, leaving the plaintiff without a remedy, unlike in international disputes; and (3) a state should not provide a 'sanctuary' for those who commit wrongs in a neighboring state. Denying jurisdiction would leave the plaintiff with a clear right but no remedy, violating basic principles of justice.
Dissenting - Ed. F. MoFaddin, J.
No. An Arkansas court does not have jurisdiction because an action for injury to real property is a local action that must be brought in the jurisdiction where the land lies. This court previously held that damage to growing crops is damage to realty and that such actions are local. The majority's decision to depart from the near-unanimous rule in the United States, established in Livingston v. Jefferson, is a form of judicial legislation. The dissent argues that lower courts are not equipped to handle complex land laws of other states, that the distinction between sovereign nations and sovereign states is not a valid basis for changing the rule, and that any change to such a long-standing doctrine should be made by the legislature, not the judiciary. The court should adhere to the 'ancient landmarks' of the common law, especially concerning real property.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from the deeply entrenched common law 'local action rule,' which traditionally barred courts from hearing cases involving injury to land in other jurisdictions. By reclassifying such torts as transitory, the Arkansas Supreme Court prioritized ensuring a remedy for injured plaintiffs over adherence to an archaic procedural rule. This case positions Arkansas as a progressive jurisdiction on this issue, alongside Minnesota, potentially influencing other states to reconsider a rule that can lead to unjust results where a defendant is not subject to service in the state where the harm occurred.
Unlock the full brief for Reasor-Hill Corp. v. Harrison