 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ex parte Walter Industries6/6/2003
County, a single-county circuit, holding that "the Act does not create two separate judicial districts for purposes of venue." 584 So. 2d at 505 (emphasis added). Because the phrase "two separate judicial districts" as used in Ex parte Longmire refers to two separate parts of a single-county circuit, I am persuaded that the reference in § 6-3-7(d) to "two separate judicial districts" refers to two separate parts of the same county. Pursuant to § 6-3- 7(d), the Bessemer Cutoff must be treated as a county unto itself. This result comports with the determination reached by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Agee v. State, 465 So. 2d 1196, 1204 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984). In Agee, in the context of venue in criminal cases, that court held as follows:
"We are convinced that, in criminal actions, the Bessemer court legislation should be read as venue legislation and the two divisions treated as if two separate counties existed. See Shell v. State, 2 Ala. App. 207, 56 So. 39 (1911)."
Treating the Bessemer Cutoff as a county unto itself for venue purposes, as § 6-3-7(d) requires, one could conclude that venue in the Bessemer Division was improper and that the defendants' privilege of selecting another court to which the action should be transferred pursuant to Rule 82(d)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P., has accrued if the construction given to § 2 of the act initially creating the Bessemer Cutoff, Act No. 281, Ala. Acts 1892-93 ("the Act"), in Ex parte Central of Georgia Railway applies to the circumstances here presented. I do not, however, believe that it does.
Section 2 of the Act provides:
"That the said circuit court, holding as above provided, shall have, exercise and possess all of the jurisdiction and powers which are now, or which may hereafter be conferred by law in the several circuit courts of this State, which said jurisdiction and power shall be exclusive in, limited to, and extend over that portion of the territory of the county of Jefferson, which is included in the following precincts, to-wit: ... and that from and over the above mentioned and described territory all jurisdiction and power exercised therein at the time of the passage of this act by the circuit court of Jefferson county, as now held at Birmingham, and the common law jurisdiction and power of the city court of Birmingham is hereby expressly excluded."
In Ex parte Central of Georgia Railway, this Court interpreted the foregoing section of the Act to mean 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 513, 10 So. 2d at 750 (emphasis added).
I am not the first Justice on this Court who has had reservations as to how we got from the language of the Act to the current construction. In his dissent in Ex parte Central of Georgia Railway, Justice Foster stated:
"I think as an original proposition, the Act could very well be construed on either of two theories. One that the venue statute should apply as though it created a separate county; and, another, that it was intended to confine them [causes of action that may arise in the Bessemer Division] to that court and eliminate the Birmingham court from considering causes which arose in the Bessemer Division, though the parties may all reside in Birmingham, and though if they resided in another county, it would not exclude that county as being the proper venue.
"That being the situation, this Court deliberately accepted the former theory [that the venue statute should apply as though it created a sep
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.
|
|