 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ex parte Walter Industries6/6/2003
ivil causes arising' therein, to use the words of Triest & Co. v. Enslen, [106 Ala. 180, 17 So. 356 (1895)].
"The purpose of our several legislative acts providing for holding terms of the circuit court at places other than the county seat is for the convenience of the people in the district defined by statute. In the Act before us, as construed by this court soon after its passage, this convenience was deemed to be best conserved by giving exclusive jurisdiction of civil suits based upon causes of action arising in the Bessemer District, and limited to causes of action arising therein. The ct does not deal with what suits may properly be brought in Jefferson County under the general venue laws of Alabama. The Constitution and statutes prescribe the county or counties in which the several classes of actions may be brought. The statute before us deals with the venue as between divisions of the circuit court, each with like jurisdiction over the subject matter, but held at different places in the county. To make clear that the general venue laws should not be construed into these statutes, the lawmakers wrote into the chapter on Venue of Actions the following: '§ 64. Local laws in counties having two courthouses unaffected.--In all counties having two courthouses, the provisions of this chapter shall not affect any local laws relating to venue in force at the adoption of this Code.' [Ala. Code 1975, § 6-3-10].
"Clearly all suits maintainable in Jefferson County under the general venue statutes are still maintainable in that county. All such suits not maintainable in Bessemer are properly brought in Birmingham, the county seat. Since the venue of suits in the Bessemer Division of the circuit court is limited to suits upon causes of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of that court, suits upon all causes of action not arising therein must be brought in Birmingham.
"This, it seems to us, gives effect to the terms of the statute to the effect that the court at Bessemer has exclusive jurisdiction of all civil actions at law upon causes of action arising in the territorial jurisdiction of that court, and such jurisdiction is limited to suits upon causes of action arising within such territory."
243 Ala. at 512-13, 10 So. 2d at 749-50 (emphasis added). Because the cause of action in Central of Georgia Railway did not arise in the territorial boundaries of the Bessemer Division, the Court held that the defendants were entitled to have the case transferred to the Birmingham Division. Id.
In the years following Central of Georgia Railway, this Court has consistently held that, unless the issue is waived, the Bessemer Division can hear only cases that have "arisen" within the territorial boundaries of that division. See Seaboard Surety Co. v. William R. Phillips & Co., 279 Ala. 510, 512, 187 So. 2d 264, 266 (1966) (opinion on application for rehearing)(noting that the Act limits the "territorial jurisdiction" of the Bessemer Division to cases that "arose" in that division); Ex parte Southern Building Code Congress, 282 Ala. 523, 213 So. 2d 365 (Ala. 1968)(holding that the Act limits the jurisdiction conferred on the Bessemer Division to causes of action that arose there); Mead Corp. v. City of Birmingham, 295 Ala. 14, 321 So. 2d 655 (1975)(same); MetroBank v. Reid, 374 So. 2d 296 (Ala. 1979)(same); and Ex parte Fields, 432 So. 2d 1290, 1292 (Ala. 1983)("the Bessemer Division is given exclusive jurisdiction of civil suits based upon causes of action arising in the Bessemer Division and limited to causes of action arising therein"). In upholding the dismissal of cases improperly filed in the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court, this
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|