173 Ga. 1 | Ga. | 1931
Suit in equity was brought by Louisiana State
Rice Milling Company Inc., a Louisiana corporation, which was the buyer of one million rice bags, against Mente & Company Inc., also a Louisiana corporation, the successor of the seller of the bags, for a breach of certain contracts made in Louisiana, the buyer contending that the bags were defective and not up to the contract
Has the superior court of Chatham County jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the persons for the purpose of rendering a judgment in personam against the defendant foreign corporation, “doing business” in this State, on a cause of action which arose in the State of Louisiana? The case in no way involves jurisdiction in rem, as by attachment, provided in the Civil Code (1910), § 5072, as construed in Parramore v. Alexander, 132 Ga. 642, 644 (64 S. E. 660). “It is now well settled that it is essential to the legal rendition of a personal judgment against a foreign corporation, otherwise than by its voluntary appearance, that the corporation be doing business within the State. Vicksburg &c. Ry. v. DeBow, 148 Ga. 738 (98 S. E. 381); St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. Alexander, 227 U. S. 218 (33 Sup. Ct. 245, 57 L. ed. 486, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 77); International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579 (34 Sup. Ct. 944, 58 L. ed. 1479). In order to give the courts of this State jurisdiction of a suit against a foreign corporation and to authorize proper service of process upon it, the business which the corporation is conducting in the State must be a part of the business for which it was organized. 14A C. J. 1373; Vicksburg &c. Ry. v. DeBow, supra; Booz v. Texas &c. R. Co., 250 Ill. 376 (95 N. E. 460); Home Lumber Co. v. Hopkins, 107 Kan. 153 (190 Pac. 601, 10 A. L. R. 879). . . Whether a foreign corporation is doing business in this State in such' a sense as to make it amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts thereof is, in its last analysis, a question of due process of law under the constitution of
The conclusion by this court in its first adjudication of the question rvas indisputably and conclusively adverse to the jurisdiction in the courts of this State in the case stated (Bawknight v. Ins. Co., 55 Ga. 194); but that case was reviewed and formally overruled in Reeves v. Southern Ry. Co., 121 Ga. 561 (49 S. E. 674, 70 L. R. A. 513, 2 Ann. Cas. 207), and the latter case was followed in Hawkins v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 123 Ga. 722 (51 S. E. 724), decided by five Justices. The Civil Code (1910), § 2203, declares: “Corporations created by other States or foreign governments are recognized in our courts only by comity, and so long as the same comity is extended in their courts to corpora
In the Reeves case, supra, overruling the Bawknigt case, an elaborate opinion was written by Justice Cobb, in which a number of cases from other jurisdictions were cited. The full opinions in both cases are worthy of careful consideration. In part it was said in the Beeves case: “Presence within the territorial limits of the State gives jurisdiction to its courts, and a non-resident may be brought into court by service of process in the same manner that a resident would be brought in. In cases of foreign corporations a mere passing through the State of an officer, even though the head officer, would not give the courts of this State jurisdiction of the corporation. Schmidlapp v. Ins. Co., 71 Ga. 246; Associated Press v. United Press, 104 Ga. 51 (29 S. E. 869); Reynolds Co. v. Martin, 116 Ga. 495 (42 S. E. 796). A corporation is not always present where its officers are, but it is present in any place where its officers or agents transact business in behalf of the corporation under authority conferred by it. The weight of modern authority seems to support the proposition that a foreign corporation may be sued on a transitory cause of action in any jurisdiction where it can be found, in the sense that service may be perfected upon an agent or officer transacting business for the corporation
In the later Hawkins case, supra, the ruling was further qualified to the extent of protecting the public policy of the State. The court in the Bawknight case as quoted above referred to the “hazard and expense” incurred by a foreign corporation incident to defending a ease in this State. In the Reeves case the court referred to the “great hardship and inconvenience” resulting often times from the rule requiring suits against corporations to be brought in the State of their domicile. We think it may safely be said that hardship, inconvenience, and expense may often times result from either rule. Furthermore, no rule can possibly be adopted which will insure against these attendant evils. They are as the bark of the tree of litigation, without which the tree will wither and die. Without expenditure of effort, the industry, money, and quite generally of travel to the scene of the forum, the contest will cease. Moreover we subscribe to the aphorism, “a hard case makes bad law.” Our statute makes provision for service of process on non-resident insurance companies (Civil Code (1910), §§ 2446, 2447), and special provision for service on railroad companies (§ 2798), but the section last cited does not apply if the suit is for injuries sustained in a foreign State. Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern R. Co. v. Wilson, 116 Ga. 189 (42 S. E. 356); Reeves v. So. Ry. Co., supra. From what has been said it is obvious that if the Reeves case can not be distinguished by its facts from the present case, we are bound to hold that the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition on account of lack of jurisdiction. This leads us to examine the facts in the Reeves case. The residence of Eeeves, the plaintiff, does not appear. The defendant, Southern Railway Company, was duly served with process according to the law of this State. As stated in the report of that case: “The cause of action alleged is a tort to property, committed in the State of Alabama, the tort consisting of an injury to a horse which was being transported from Harrison-ville, Missouri, to Atlanta, Georgia, in a car of the defendant
We hold that suit on a transitory cause of action, against a nonresident corporation, is not within the jurisdiction of Georgia courts, unless the defendant voluntarily consents, or that the action grows out of business transacted by the defendant, which business must be a part of the business for which it was organized, or the cause of action must bear a relation to such business conducted in this State, and there must be proper service. Old Wayne Life Association v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8 (27 Sup. Ct. 236, 51 L. ed. 345); Simon v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 U. S. 115 (35 Sup. Ct. 255, 59 L. ed. 492); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Chatters, 279 U. S. 320 (49 Sup. Ct. 329, 73 L. ed. 711). Numerous cases from outside jurisdictions are cited in the briefs of both parties in the present case. A number of them are exceedingly well considered, but we think it would be useless to cite them here. Most of them are found in works like Corpus Juris and Euling Case Law, where a general survey of the question is well stated. A very thoughtful review of the history of this question, from the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in particular, will be found in 79 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 956. The annotations to the case of Gregonis v. Philadelphia &c. Co., 32 A. L. R. 33 et seq., cite a valuable collection of decisions, including the case of Stewart v. Litchenberg, 148 La. 195, 86 So. 734, with regard to the exercise of discretion by the court in exercising or refusing to exercise jurisdiction against non-resident defendant corporations. In view of the many decisions on the question, it is unnecessary to discuss the question of the non-residence of the plaintiff in this case. It is generally agreed by practically all courts that if a non-resident corporation is sued on a cause of action which has a relation to the business transacted in the State where the suit is brought, the corporation will be estopped to take advantage of its failure to file a stipulation with regard to the person upon whom service may be had, where the statute has provided for such appointment. In the case of insurance companies, as in the Bawknight case, that principle has application, but not in a case like this. The decisions in courts of last resort are not in harmony. This court, in the Beeves case, considered the Bawknight cause to be "in direct con
Since the decision in this case brings in question whether or not the exercise of the jurisdiction sought would be a denial of the due-process clause of the constitution of the' United States, it would be very consoling if a case from the Supreme Court dealing directly with the question could be cited. As we view thém, the decisions of the Supreme Court tend in the direction of a denial of jurisdiction under the state of facts in the present case, but we do not think that that great court has yet rendered a decision in which they have taken positive and unequivocal ground. The case of Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Chatters, supra, is very nearly on the question, but not precisely so. At least the facts do not coincide so nearly as to make the decision controlling. From what is said above we hold that the trial judge did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Since the judgment dismissing the case is affirmed, the cross-bill of exceptions will be dismissed.
Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed.