Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Turner

• Decision Date: 05 December 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 544,88 Tenn. 265
• Parties: CUMBERLAND TELEPHONE & TEL. CO. v. TURNER et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

12 S.W. 544

88 Tenn. 265

CUMBERLAND TELEPHONE & TEL. CO. v. TURNER et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 5, 1889

Error to circuit court, Sumner county; A. H. MUMFORD, Judge.

W. C Dismukes and Vertrees & Vertrees, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. W Boddie, for defendants in error.

LURTON J.

Plaintiff in error is a foreign corporation, doing business in this and other states. Among other lines, it has one in the city of Gallatin, and a line extending from that place to Scottsville, Ky. It was sued in the circuit court of Sumner county, upon a cause of action originating in that county for injuries sustained by reason of alleged negligence in the care and maintenance of their line of wire in that county. The company has an office in Gallatin, and a local resident agent. Process was served upon this local agent, the return showing that neither the president, cashier, treasurer, or secretary resided in the county. There was judgment by default. Appellant thereupon filed a petition praying that the execution be superseded, upon the ground that service upon its agent was insufficient to give the court jurisdiction; that the act of 1887, c. 226, required that, in addition to such service, the clerk of the court was required to notify such foreign corporation of the pendency of such suit, by letter, and the plaintiff to cause a copy of the writ of summons to be served personally upon some one in their principal office in the state of their creation. The service made was sufficient if the appellant had been a domestic corporation. Code, § 2834; Toppins v. Railroad Co., 5 Lea, 604. Sections 2831-2834 (Mill. & V. Code, §§ 3536-3539) of the Code regulate the mode in which corporations may be sued. These sections apply equally to domestic and foreign corporations having an office or agency and a resident local agent in the county in which suit is brought. Railroad Co. v. Walker, 9 Lea, 475 Peters v. Neely, 16 Lea, 280. The word "officer" in section 2834 has been held to be a misprint, and to mean "office." 5 Lea, 604. It was however, held that the provisions of the Code above cited did not apply to the case of a foreign corporation, having no resident agent or local office, but which was alone represented by a traveling agent not resident in this state. 9 Lea, 475. To meet this defect, the act of 1887, c. 226, was passed. This act provides that any non-resident corporation, "found doing business in this...