Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance v. WheelerTennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance v. Wheeler
Jack and Nellie Ruth Wheeler, residents of Tennessee, sued David A. Roden, also a Tennessee resident, and three others who are Georgia residents, in the Superior Court of Walker County, Georgia, for the wrongful death of their daughter who was killed in an automobile collision in Georgia. The decedent was a passenger in a car driven by Roden; the other defendants drove, or were passengers in, two other vehicles invоlved in the collision. Roden was uninsured, and pursuant to OCGA § 33-7-11 a copy of the complaint was served on Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Cоmpany, insurance company of the Wheelers and their deceased daughter. Tennessee Farmers Mutual filed an answer in its own name, asserting defenses available to Roden and also raising defenses as to its liability to the Wheelers under the several policies. Tennessеe Farmers Mutual also filed a motion for severance of the issues of tort liability from those of insurance coverage, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, Tennessee Farmers Mutual, a Tennessee resident, filed a declaratory judgment action against the Wheelеrs in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee for determination of certain coverage questions. On application of the Wheelers, the Georgia trial court issued an injunction restraining Tennessee Farmers Mutual from prosecuting its declaratory action in the Tennesseе court. Tennessee Farmers Mutual appeals.
1. We note at the outset that the injunction which is the subject of this appeal was purеly ancillary to the wrongful death action. As this was not an equity case, this court, and not the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction. See
Findley v. City of Vidalia,
2. Appellant cоntends that the trial court erred by enjoining appellant from further prosecution of its declaratory judgment action in Tennessee. Appellant argues, inter alia, that the trial court lacked the authority to enjoin appellant, a nonresident, from prosecuting an aсtion in the courts of another state. We do not agree.
“The power of a court of equity to restrain persons within its jurisdiction from prosеcuting suits in a foreign court rests upon the basis that the person whom it is sought to enjoin is within the jurisdiction of the court, and he can be prevented from doing an inequitable thing.”
Ambursen &c. Constr. Co. v. Northern Contracting Co.,
Appellant contends it is entitled to maintain parallel aсtions in different forums having concurrent jurisdiction until a final judgment is rendered in one of them. Under the facts and circumstances presented here, we do not agree.
It is well established that “[w]here the questions to be answered are legal ones determinable in another proceeding then in progress between the same parties, in a court having jurisdiction to determine them, the court will ordinarily refuse to entertain a deсlaratory judgment proceeding. [Cit.]”
Darnell v. Tate,
The power of a court to enjoin a party from proceeding with an
*382
action in the court of another state should be exercised “sparingly, not capriciously, and not unless a clear equity is prеsented requiring the interposition of the court to prevent manifest wrong and injustice.” 21 CJS 859, Courts, § 554. See
Pope,
supra at 189;
McDaniel v. Alford,
*382
Appellant finally argues that Tennessee was the proper place for the declaratory judgment action, as all concerned parties are Tennessee residents and the insurance contract was written, delivered, and executed in Tennessee. Even if Tennessee law must ultimately govern the determination of the coverage issues, a matter which need not be decided here, this would not support appellant’s contentions that the trial court erred by enjoining the Tennessee action, as the Georgia court may apply the Tennessee law if it is correсt and proper to do so. See
Terry v. Mays,
We note that appellant has raised coverage questions in the Tennessee action which are additional to those raised in the Georgia proceeding. As the trial court has pointed out in its order, appellant may amеnd its answer to include these additional issues.
In conclusion we note that the issue of the denial of appellant’s motion for severance is not raised on appeal, although as a general rule the question of severance is a matter of discretion for the trial judge.
Lansky v. Goldstein,
Judgment affirmed.