Bawknight v. The Liverpool London

• Decision Date: 31 July 1875
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: Elias Bawknight, plaintiff in error. v. The Liverpool London and Globe Insurance Company, defendant in error.

55 Ga. 195

Elias Bawknight, plaintiff in error. v. The Liverpool London and Globe Insurance Company, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, July Term, 1875.)

Foreign corporations. Actions. Before Judge Tompkins. Chatham Superior Court. February Term, 1875.

Reported in the opinion.

Hartridge & Chisholm, for plaintiff in error.

Jackson, Lawton & Basinger, for defendant.

Jackson, Judge.

The defendant is a corporation chartered by Great Britain, and having an agency in Savannah, Chatham county, Georgia. A judgment was obtained against it by the plaintiff, in Florida, and suit on this judgment was brought in the superior court of Chatham county. A motion was made by the defendant to dismiss it on two grounds: 1st. Because the superior court of Chatham county had no jurisdiction of the cause, (the motion on this ground having been made at a prior term, before Judge Schley, and refused by him, and excepted to pendente lite, and is here for review;) 2d. Because the judgment sued on was fraudulent on its face. The court granted the motion and dismissed the suit, the plaintiff excepted, and this dismissal of the suit is the error complained of.

The first question is, has the superior court of Chatham jurisdiction of such a suit. This depends upon the construction of our statutes. The general rule is that a corporation can be sued only in the place where it was created—within the jurisdiction where it was born, and where its principal place of business is located. Has that rule been changed by our Code in respect to foreign corporations having agents in our midst, and to whatextent? Foreign corporations are recognized by Us on the principle of comity: Code, section *1675; and if a domestic corporation, it may be sued wherever it has an agent who transacted its business and made contracts for it, and service upon such agent is good service: Code, section 3369. This corporation is an insurance company, and the statute provides that such companies may be sued at their principal place of business, or at any place where they have an agent or had one when the cause of action arose; and service upon the agent is declared to be good service: Code, sections 3408, 3409. These sections appear to apply to domestic corporations; but this court has held them applicable also to foreign corporations having agencies in Georgia and doing business here, and has construed them to give our courts jurisdiction in certain cases of suits to be instituted in personam against such companies. City Fire Insurance Company of Hartford v. Carrugi, 41 Georgia Reports, 660, and National Bank of Augusta v. The Southern Porcelain Manufacturing Company, decided at this term. But these cases arose out of contracts made here by agents in Georgia.

We are not aware of any case which has decided that a foreign corporation may be sued in personam here on a foreign judgment, or on a...