Facts
- Planters Flying Service sued D.M. Barton in an Arkansas circuit court to collect an account for aerial application of insecticide to Barton’s cotton crop located in Missouri.
- Barton answered that the spraying damaged his growing Missouri crop because an adulterated insecticide was used.
- Barton filed a cross-complaint against Reasor-Hill Corporation, the insecticide manufacturer, alleging negligence in marketing a chemical unsuitable for spraying cotton.
- Reasor-Hill was an Arkansas corporation and was not authorized to do business in Missouri.
- Reasor-Hill moved to dismiss the cross-complaint, arguing it alleged an injury to real property in Missouri and therefore could not be heard in Arkansas under the traditional “local action” rule.
- The circuit court overruled the motion to dismiss.
- Reasor-Hill sought a writ of prohibition from the Arkansas Supreme Court to prevent the circuit judge from exercising jurisdiction over the cross-complaint.
Issues
- Whether Arkansas courts may entertain an action seeking damages for injury to real property located in another state when the Arkansas court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
- Whether the “local action” doctrine deprives an Arkansas circuit court of power to proceed on such a claim, justifying prohibition.
Decision
- The Arkansas Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition.
- The Court held that Arkansas courts may hear a damages action for injury to real property located in another state when the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
- The Court rejected continued application of the traditional local-action bar as obsolete in modern conditions, particularly where dismissal would leave the plaintiff without any practical remedy.
- A dissent would have retained the traditional rule and left any change to the legislature.
Legal Principles
- A court with personal jurisdiction over a defendant may adjudicate a personal claim for money damages arising from injury to land located in another state.
- The historical local/transitory action distinction does not require dismissal of out-of-state land-injury damages claims when the action does not seek to determine title or directly control the land.
- Prohibition is unavailable where the trial court has authority to proceed on the claim as a matter of jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The Arkansas Supreme Court permitted an Arkansas forum to hear a negligence-based damages claim for harm to a Missouri crop, reasoning that the local-action doctrine should not bar relief where the court can exercise personal jurisdiction and the suit does not adjudicate title, thereby preventing a wrong from going without a remedy.