## 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

1. 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.
2. 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.


Reasor-Hill Corp. v. Harrison, 220 Ark. 521, 249 S.W.2d 994 (1952)