Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-17 (2026)
Where court has jurisdiction of subject matter but not venue
✓ current as of July 2026
Where an action is brought in any justice court of this state, of which the court in which it is brought has jurisdiction of the subject matter, but lacks venue jurisdiction, such action shall not be dismissed because of such lack of proper venue, but on objection on the part of the defendant shall, by the court, be transferred, together with all prepaid costs remaining after the court in which the action was originally brought has deducted the costs incurred in that court, to the venue to which it belongs.
Codes, 1942, § 1441; Laws, 1940, ch. 233; Laws, 1981, ch. 471, § 3; Laws, 1982, ch. 423, § 3; Laws, 1989, ch. 404, § 1; Laws, 1991, ch. 573, § 23, eff. 7/1/1991.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1991–2016 · leading case: Clark v. Luvel Dairy Prods., Inc., 731 So. 2d 1098 (Miss. 1998).
Clark v. Luvel Dairy Prods., Inc., 731 So. 2d 1098 (Miss. 1998). “The Court thus held that the trial court should reconsider its decision not to transfer the case pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-17 which allows a court, in an action over which it has subject matter jurisdiction, but venue is not proper, to transfer the action to the proper…”
Culbert v. Johnson & Johnson, 883 So. 2d 550 (Miss. 2004). “82(d) provides: When an action is filed laying venue in the wrong county, the action shall not be dismissed, but the court, on timely motion, shall transfer the action to the court in which it might properly have been filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed…”
Guice v. Mississippi Life Ins. Co., 836 So. 2d 756 (Miss. 2003). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-17 (Supp.2002); Miss.”
Austin Chaz Ramsey v. Auburn Univ., 191 So. 3d 102 (Miss. 2016). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-17 (Rev.2004). This statute is inapposite because it applies only to justice courts.”
Off. of Governor Div. of Medicaid v. Johnson, 950 So. 2d 1033 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-17 (Rev.2004). Accordingly, the Walthall County Chancery Court should have transferred Johnson’s appeal to the Hinds County Chancery Court.”
Dunn v. Dunn, 577 So. 2d 378 (Miss. 1991). “§ 11-5-1 (1972), as Amended. Under both our statutory law and Rules of Civil Procedure, if venue is improper, the court on timely motion shall transfer the action to the court in which it might properly have been filed.”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Moss, 873 So. 2d 76 (Miss. 2004). “” He argues the defendants’ failure to pay the medical provider in Hinds County is a substantial breach of duties they owed Moss and, therefore, part of his claims occurred in Hinds County for purposes of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-17. Thus, Moss asserts that Hinds County was a…”
Underwood v. McRae's, 811 So. 2d 400 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-17 (Rev.2000). Thus, McRae’s argues, the statute no longer applies to circuit court matters and cannot now prevent dismissal of an appeal perfected to the wrong circuit court.”
Henry Clark v. LuVel Dairy Prods. Inc, No. 96-IA-01284-SCT (Miss. Aug. 9, 1996). “The Court thus held that the trial court should reconsider its decision not to transfer the case pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §11-11-17 which allows a court, in an action over which it has subject matter jurisdiction, but venue is not proper, to transfer the action to the proper…”
Rochelle Culbert v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., No. 2003-IA-00881-SCT (Miss. Apr. 16, 2003). “2003-IA-00918-SCT, 3 Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-3 provides where civil actions may be commenced.”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Richard K. Moss, No. 2002-IA-01961-SCT (Miss. Nov. 1, 2002). “” He argues the defendants’ failure to pay the medical provider in Hinds County is a substantial breach of duties they owed Moss and, therefore, part of his claims occurred in Hinds County for purposes of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-17 . Thus, Moss asserts that Hinds County was a…”
Dudley Guice, Sr. v. Mississippi Life Ins. Co., No. 2000-IA-01516-SCT (Miss. Sept. 1, 2000). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-17 (Supp. 2002); Miss.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.