Carter v. Schackne
| Decision Date | 02 April 1938 |
| Citation | 114 S.W.2d 787 |
| Parties | CARTER v. SCHACKNE et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Davidson County; A. B. Neil, Judge.
Action by W. C. Carter, administrator of the estate of Flossie Carter, deceased, against George Schackne and others for the alleged wrongful killing of plaintiff's intestate in an automobile accident. From a judgment dismissing the declaration, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Cornelius, McKinney & Gilbert, of Nashville, for appellant.
Walter Stokes and L. M. Davis, both of Nashville, for appellee Schackne.
Goodpasture & Carpenter, of Nashville, for appellees McMahan and Ferrell.
The question presented for determination is one of venue. Plaintiff instituted this suit to recover damages for the alleged wrongful killing of his intestate, Flossie Carter, in an automobile accident which occurred in Davidson county, Tenn. Plaintiff is a resident of Davidson county. Summons was issued to the sheriff of Davidson county and returned not to be found in his county as to all of the defendants. Defendants Schackne and Quinn are residents of the State of Ohio, while defendants McMahan and Ferrell are residents of Sumner county, Tenn. Summons was served on the nonresident defendants by notice to the Secretary of State of Tennessee, under the provisions of sections 8671, 8672, and 8673 of the Code. Counterpart summons was issued to the sheriff of Sumner county and returned duly served upon defendants McMahan and Ferrell.
The nonresidents made appearance in the case by filing pleas of the general issue.
The resident defendants, McMahan and Ferrell, filed a plea in abatement to the declaration, as follows:
Plaintiff demurred to the plea. The trial court overruled the demurrer, sustained the plea, and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff has appealed to this court and assigned errors.
The sole question made by the assignments of error is whether or not the circuit court of Davidson county acquired jurisdiction of the Sumner county defendants, under the facts stated above.
Section 8671 of the Code is as follows:
Sections 8672 and 8673 provide the method of service upon such nonresidents and for proof thereof.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. Carson
...584; Courtney v. Meyer, 202 S.C. 437, 25 S.E.2d 481; Williams v. Meredith, 326 Pa. 570, 192 A. 924, 115 A.L.R. 890; Carter v. Schackne, 173 Tenn. 44, 114 S.W.2d 787. See Annotation 115 A.L.R. 893 et Chapter 47, idem, makes no provision relative to venue, except subparagraph (d) of Section 3......
-
Burns v. Duncan
...(especially when read in connection with the subsequent cases of Carroll v. Matthews, 172 Tenn. 590, 113 S.W.2d 742, and Carter v. Schackne, 173 Tenn. 44, 114 S.W.2d 787) is, we think, authority for the proposition that the venue in the instant case was in Hamilton County ("the county of ac......
-
Alcarese v. Stinger
...state as the situs of the trial, but that the action must be brought in the county of plaintiff's residence. See also Carter v. Schackne, 173 Tenn. 44, 114 S.W.2d 787. The case of Lloyd Adams, Inc., v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 190 Ga. 633, 10 S.E.2d 46 was brought under the Georgia statute,......
-
Bellar v. National Motor Fleets, Inc.
...was foreclosed against plaintiff Bellar by Carroll v. Matthews, 172 Tenn. 590, 113 S.W.2d 742 (March 5, 1938); Carter v. Schackne, 173 Tenn. 44, 114 S.W.2d 787 (April 2, 1938), and Thomas v. Altsheler, 191 Tenn. 640, 235 S.W.2d 806 (January 1951), and we agree. Plaintiff Bellar contends the......