Ark. Code Ann. § 16-58-125 (2026)

Research References

ALR.

Service of Process Via Computer or Fax. 30 A.L.R.6th 413.

Ark. L. Notes.

Gitelman and Watkins, No Requiem for Ricarte: Separation of Powers, the Rules of Evidence, and the Rules of Civil Procedure, 1991 Ark. L. Notes 27.

Laurence, Recent Developments in the Arkansas Law of Garnishment: A Compendium of the Pertinent Cases and Statutes, 1992 Ark. L. Notes 39.

Laurence, Recent Developments in the Arkansas Law of Garnishemnt: Does a Corporate Garnishee Need a Lawyer to Answer the Writ?, 1997 Ark. L. Notes 95.

Case Notes

Construction.

This section is construed to mean that such corporations as mentioned shall be subject to suits in any of the courts of any of the counties, if it keeps or maintains a place where a well-defined line of business is carried on with an agent in charge of that business. Harrison v. Swift & Co., 200 Ark. 285, 139 S.W.2d 4 (1940).

This section does not repeal any statute relating to service of process but nothing is said to limit its effect upon venue since providing venue in additional counties is certainly cumulative in effect and the section cannot be read to be cumulative only to statutes governing method of service. American Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Enfield, 261 Ark. 796, 551 S.W.2d 552 (1977).

Applicability.

Defendants contending that this statute, rather than § 16-60-108, is the applicable statute could not prevent a trial for want of jurisdiction where the jurisdiction depended on questions of fact. Millsap v. Williams, 236 Ark. 416, 366 S.W.2d 705 (1963).

Corporations.

Because the buyer failed to produce any facts to support its venue argument, and because this section and § 16-58-116 supported venue for the action in Cleburne County, the trial court correctly denied the buyer's motion to dismiss on the basis of venue. Ison Props., LLC v. Wood, 85 Ark. App. 443, 156 S.W.3d 742 (2004).

Insufficiency Not Apparent.

Where alleged lack of service on foreign corporation is not apparent upon the face of the records but arose upon presentation of evidence of certain factual conditions and legal effect of the facts, writ of prohibition to prevent trial was denied. Simms Oil Co. v. Jones, 192 Ark. 189, 91 S.W.2d 258 (1936).

Office and Business.

The words “branch office” and “other place of business” are not synonymous; branch office designates a place where business is transacted similar to that where the principal office is situated. Fort Smith Lumber Co. v. Shackleford, 115 Ark. 272, 171 S.W. 99 (1914).

A foreign corporation need not own or rent the building in which it conducts its business to authorized service on the agent in charge. Ramey v. Baker, 182 Ark. 1043, 34 S.W.2d 461 (1931).

Service on domestic corporation in county in which it had no branch office or other place of business was invalid. Chevrolet Motor Co. v. Landers Chevrolet Co., 183 Ark. 669, 37 S.W.2d 873 (1931).

—Branch Office.

In an action against a foreign corporation, service of summons in a county where the company maintains a branch office is sufficient. Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. Senn, 184 Ark. 554, 43 S.W.2d 255 (1931).

Contract action could only be brought where corporation maintained branch. Mayner v. Utah Constr. Co., 108 F. Supp. 532 (W.D. Ark. 1952).

—Place of Business.

Establishment of place of business found. Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Hoover, 182 Ark. 1065, 34 S.W.2d 464 (1931)Limited byInternational Paper Co. v. Aud, 210 Ark. 425, 196 S.W.2d 578 (1946); Cook v. Malvern Brick & Tile Co., 194 Ark. 759, 109 S.W.2d 451 (1937); Public Loan Corp. v. Stanberry, 224 Ark. 258, 272 S.W.2d 694 (1954); Brandon v. Memphis Publishing Co., 194 F. Supp. 376 (E.D. Ark. 1961).

In action for injuries by passenger forcibly ejected from defendant's bus, filing of action in county other than the one where defendant maintained a place of business and service of summons on bus driver was unauthorized. Dixie Motor Coach Corp. v. Toler, 197 Ark. 1097, 126 S.W.2d 618 (1939).

Plaintiff did not secure jurisdiction of defendant corporation by service of process on the corporation in county where defendant had principal place of business, where suit was filed in county wherein defendant had no officers or place of business at all. Concrete, Inc. v. Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co., 228 Ark. 1016, 311 S.W.2d 770 (1958).

Other Laws.

This section was not affected by § 16-58-122(a) and (b). Dixie Motor Coach Corp. v. Toler, 197 Ark. 1097, 126 S.W.2d 618 (1939); Missouri Pac. Transp. Co. v. Pipkin, 199 Ark. 339, 133 S.W.2d 851 (1939).

Rule 4 A.R.C.P. did not supersede this section. Sun Gas Liquids Co. v. Helena Nat'l Bank, 276 Ark. 173, 633 S.W.2d 38 (1982)Criticized byVenable v. Becker, 287 Ark. 236, 697 S.W.2d 903 (1985).

Proper County.

Where transitory action against domestic corporation was brought in county in which it maintained a branch, service should have been upon the agent in that county, and not on the general manager of the corporation in the county in which the corporation maintained its principal office. Duncan Lumber Co. v. Blalock, 171 Ark. 397, 284 S.W. 15 (1926), overruled, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Manion, 193 Ark. 405, 100 S.W.2d 672 (1937).

Service on agent in charge of branch office may be at any place he may be found in the county. Black Springs Lumber Co. v. Palmer, 192 Ark. 1032, 96 S.W.2d 469 (1936).

Where action against foreign corporation was brought in one county under this section, service of process on designated agent for service in another county was invalid. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Manion, 193 Ark. 405, 100 S.W.2d 672 (1937).

Proper Persons.

Person found to be agent upon whom process could be properly served. Terry Dairy Co. v. Parker, 144 Ark. 401, 223 S.W. 6 (1920); Riggs v. Clay County Burial Ass'n, 192 Ark. 994, 96 S.W.2d 4 (1936); Missouri Pac. Transp. Co. v. Pipkin, 199 Ark. 339, 133 S.W.2d 851 (1939); Public Loan Corp. v. Stanberry, 224 Ark. 258, 272 S.W.2d 694 (1954); Arkansas Indep. Oil Marketers Ass'n v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 225 Ark. 620, 284 S.W.2d 127 (1955); Interstate Fire Ins. Co. v. Tolbert, 233 Ark. 249, 343 S.W.2d 784 (1961).

Person found not to be agent of the corporation upon whom process could be properly served within this statute where shipments were made f.o.b. and products handled became the property of the distributor. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Manion, 193 Ark. 405, 100 S.W.2d 672 (1937); International Paper Co. v. Aud, 210 Ark. 425, 196 S.W.2d 578 (1946).

The requirement that service be made upon the person in charge of the corporate office or business is mandatory. Morgan v. National Pizza Co., 285 Ark. 61, 684 S.W.2d 812 (1985).

An order setting aside the judgment against a garnishee was appealable to the Supreme Court only because the appeal involved the interpretation or construction of this section which establishes the requirements for services of process upon a corporate agent at a branch office. Morgan v. National Pizza Co., 285 Ark. 61, 684 S.W.2d 812 (1985).

Return.

Sheriff's return showing service on defendant's agent without allegation that defendant maintained an office or other place of business in the county and not showing that summons was served upon an agent in charge of an office or other place of business, was insufficient to show valid service in action. Sloan v. Peoples Loan & Inv. Co., 195 Ark. 1085, 115 S.W.2d 833 (1938).

Venue.

This section governs venue and clearly states that venue in an action against a domestic corporation can be laid in any county where the corporation maintains a branch office and that service of summons from any court held in the county upon the person in charge of the office is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. American Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Enfield, 261 Ark. 796, 551 S.W.2d 552 (1977).

Cited: Fort Smith Lumber Co. v. Shackleford, 115 Ark. 272, 171 S.W. 99 (1914); Arkansas Valley Indus., Inc. v. Roberts, 244 Ark. 432, 425 S.W.2d 298 (1968); Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 260 Ark. 874, 545 S.W.2d 612 (1977); Porter Foods, Inc. v. Brown, 281 Ark. 148, 661 S.W.2d 388 (1983); Zolper v. AT&T Info. Sys., 289 Ark. 27, 709 S.W.2d 74 (1986).