Thе Humphreys are the former owners of a South Carolina heating and air conditioning business. Langford purchased the business at a time when all parties were residents оf South Carolina. The contract of sale was executed in South Carolina. Subsequently the Humphreys moved to Bryan County, Georgia, and instituted this lawsuit in Chatham County, Georgia сoncerning the sales agreement. Langford, still a resident of South Carolina, was in Chatham County one day to bowl. While there, he was served with the complaint and summons in this сase.
Langford filed a motion to dismiss the action alleging lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Code Ann. § 15-202 provides, “The jurisdiction of this State and its laws extend to all persons while within its limits, whether as citizens, denizens, or temporary sojourners.” The trial court relying on Shaffer v. Heitner,
Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, involved a shareholder’s derivative suit brought in Delaware, the state of incorporation of the Greyhound Corp., the businеss sued. Also named as defendants were Greyhound Lines, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, and 28 present or former officers or directors of one or both corporatiоns. Since the individual defendants were non-residents of Delaware, the plaintiff, Heitner, filed a motion for and obtained an order of sequestration of certain Dеlaware property of the individual defendants (their corporate stock) to assure their appearance in the suit. In evaluating the constitutionality оf Delaware’s assertion of jurisdiction over the defendants’ property and thereby over the non-resident defendants themselves, the Supreme Court held that “all аssertions of
*733
state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny.”
Langford, in the case at bar, would have us hold that because mere presence 1 of property within a forum is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on its courts, then by analogy, mere presence of the person is nоt sufficient either. This we decline to do.
“Historically the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment in personam is grounded on their de facto power over the defendant’s person. Hence his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding him. Pennoyer v. Neff,
As this quoted language indicates, International Shoe does not cast doubt on the notion that presence is still a sufficient basis for jurisdiction, it simply states a rule of “minimum contacts” as an alternative to “presence.” International Shoe illustrates the problems with dealing with the “fiction” of the corporate personality. Corporate presence can only be manifested by corporate activity and therefore a minimum contacts analysis seems appropriate. However, when an individual is personally served within thе state, we are talking about actual presence. Minimum contacts analysis is not necessary. It could be forcefully argued, however, that personal presenсe in a state fulfills the minimum contacts requirement.
Shaffer, adopting the minimum contacts test of International Shoe, also dealt with jurisdiction over defendants not personally served within the forum state. In analyzing the practical effect of in rem jurisdiction, Shaffer recognized that “the phrase ‘judicial jurisdiction over a thing,’ is a custоmary elliptical way of referring to jurisdiction over the interests of persons in a thing.”
Three cases decided since Shaffer, Kulko v. California Superior Court,
We are aware the various commentators have suggested that Shaffer represented the end of jurisdiction merely by personal service on a transient within the forum. We, however, believe that there are compelling reasons to uphold such jurisdiction rather than strike it down based upon cases which do not mandate such a result. We believe that it is not practical to have classifications of sojourners in the state. Where does a court draw the line between sоjourners here for an evening of bowling and sojourners who commute to the state on a daily basis? Some individuals are constant or perennial sojourners. Somе have no identifiable place of residence. Still others are able to avoid personal service by remaining away from an otherwise identifiable рlace of abode. Others to avoid a responsibility can terminate on a moment’s notice a legal residence and otherwise disrupt the judicial process. Others can terminate residence in a forum favorable to the plaintiff and establish, residence in a forum considered favorable to the defendant. One of two joint obligors may never be reached with process where they are residents of different states, and there is no basis for federal court jurisdiction, if it wеre not for a sojourner jurisdiction rule. If they cannot be sued where they are found, they may not be sued at all. Due process is not solely for the protectiоn of the judicial defendant. Plaintiffs have rights that must also be protected. A balancing of rights appears constitutionally fair.
*735
When a sojourner is sued in this state, the plаintiff does not select the venue. The venue is where the defendant
is
of his own volition and is served.
See McPherson v. McPherson,
Judgment reversed.
Notes
e use the term “mere presence” to distinguish this Shaffer-type of property from property which could be the “minimum contact” a defendant has with a state.