# Sun Gas Liquids Co. v. Helena National Bank

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 24, 1982 · 276 Ark. 173

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7822065

## Case

- **Full name:** SUN GAS LIQUIDS COMPANY v. THE HELENA NATIONAL BANK
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 24, 1982
- **Citations:** 276 Ark. 173; 633 S.W.2d 38; 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1398
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Purtle
- **Judges:** Hickman, Purtle
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7822065

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that appellate court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even those contesting the validity of service

## Opinion text

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons suggested by Justice Hickman in the majority opinion. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-347 (Repl. 1979) states:
Any and all foreign and domestic corporations who keep or maintain in any of the counties of this State a branch office or other place of business shall be subject to suits in any of the courts in any of said counties where said corporation so keeps or maintains such office or place of business, and service of summons or other process of law from any of the said courts held in said counties upon the agent, servant or employee in charge of said office or place of business shall be deemed good and sufficient service upon said corporations and shall be sufficient to give jurisdiction to any of the courts of this State held in the counties where said service of summons or other process of law is had upon said agent, servant or employee of said corporations.
It is obvious in reading the above statute that the authorization for service upon an agent or employee of any corporation applies only when the suit is brought in the county where the agent or employee is physically located. Therefore, service under the above statute is not proper.
I also agree with the appellant’s contention that the writ of garnishment was null and void for failure to include the allegations and interrogatories. In DeSoto, Inc. v. Crow, 257 Ark. 882 , 520 S.W.2d 307 (1975), we held that for a writ of garnishment to be valid it must give notice that failure to answer could result in a judgment against the garnishee. This was pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 29-107 (Repl. 1962). I would, therefore, reverse the trial court and dismiss the suit as to the appellant.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7822065. Public record. Not legal advice.