Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Everett
| Decision Date | 21 February 1896 |
| Citation | 25 S.E. 734,97 Ga. 787 |
| Parties | FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. v. EVERETT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Whether one not a resident of this state, who holds the position of inspector for a non-resident corporation doing a fidelity insurance business in this state, and whose duties are to audit claims for losses and make collections for the corporation within this state, is or is not such an agent of the corporation as may, under section 3369 of the Code, be served so as to effect service upon the corporation, such an agent of a foreign corporation who attends a court in this state for the sole purpose of testifying as a witness for the state in a criminal case is exempt from service upon him, as such agent, of a process against the corporation.
Error from superior court, Glynn county; J. L. Sweat, Judge.
Action by R. H. Everett against the Fidelity & Casualty Company and W. L. Cochran. Judgment for plaintiff. The Fidelity Company brings error. Reversed.
Dessau & Hodges, for plaintiff in error.
Atkinson & Dunwody, for defendant in error.
R. H Everett brought suit against the Fidelity & Casualty Company a corporation under the laws of the state of New York, and against W. L. Cochran, a nonresident of the state of Georgia. The sheriff of Glynn county, where the suit was brought, on April 21, 1894, served a copy of the petition and process upon one R. T. Brennan, and made the following entry of service: "I have this day served the Fidelity & Casualty Co., by delivering a copy of the within petition and process to its agent, R. T. Brennan." At the appearance term the Fidelity & Casualty Company traversed this return, and upon the trial of the traverse the following facts were developed by the testimony: Brennan was the inspector for the Fidelity & Casualty Company, with headquarters in New York City, and his home at White Plains, in New York. He traveled throughout the Southern States, and his duties were to audit losses and make collections for the company, but he took no risks, and issued no policies. The company has a general agent, located in Atlanta, Ga. On the day that he was served by the sheriff he came to Brunswick for the sole purpose of testifying as a witness for the state in a criminal case against R. H Everett. He arrived in Brunswick in the morning, attended the trial of the criminal case that day, was served by the sheriff in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mertens v. McMahon
...Co., 73 Md. 132, 20 Atl. 788; Bolz v. Crone, 64 Kan. 570, 67 Pac. 1108; Wells v. Patton, 50 Kan. 732, 33 Pac. 15; Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Everett, 97 Ga. 787, 25 S.E. 734; First Natl. Bank v. Ames, 39 Minn. 179, 39 N.W. 308; Sherman v. Gundlach, 37 Minn. 118, 33 N.W. 548; Linton v. Cooper, 5......
-
Mertens v. McMahon
... ... Crone, 64 Kan. 570, 67 P. 1108; Wells v ... Patton, 50 Kan. 732, 33 P. 15; Fidelity & Cas. Co ... v. Everett, 97 Ga. 787, 25 S.E. 734; First Natl ... Bank v. Ames, 39 Minn ... ...
-
Ewing v. Elliott
...in this state. See Thornton v. American Writing-Machine Co., 83 Ga. 288, 9 S. E. 679, 20 Am. St. Rep. 320; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Everett, 97 Ga. 787, 788, 25 S. E. 734; Vaughn v. Boyd, 142 Ga. 230, 82 S. E. 576, L. R. A. 1915A, 694, where a full discussion of this principle is given an......
-
Ewing v. Elliott
... ... American ... Writing-Machine Co., 83 Ga. 288, 9 S.E. 679, 20 ... Am.St.Rep. 320; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Everett, ... 97 Ga. 787, 788, 25 S.E. 734; Vaughn v. Boyd, 142 ... Ga. 230, 82 ... ...