Gallaher v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
| Citation | 367 F. Supp. 1063 |
| Decision Date | 27 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 6799. |
| Parties | Roy E. GALLAHER, Administrator of Estate of Timothy E. Meyers v. CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Frank M. Gleason, Rossville, Ga., Weill, Ellis, Weems & Copeland, Scott N. Brown, Jr., Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Luther, Anderson & Ruth, Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.
This is an action for wrongful death arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred in Kentucky. At the time of the accident and death the decedent was a citizen and resident of Tennessee and the plaintiff is the administrator of his estate, duly appointed by order of a Tennessee court. The plaintiff is himself a citizen of Tennessee. The defendant is a corporation doing business in Tennessee, but incorporated under the laws of Delaware and having its principal place of business elsewhere than in Tennessee. Service of process in this case was had both upon a statutory agent appointed by the defendant pursuant to Tennessee law and upon the person in charge of the defendant's local business office in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground that it is not amenable to suit in Tennessee, contending in support of its motion to dismiss that T.C.A. § 20-220 limits the service of process upon foreign corporations doing business in Tennessee to transactions arising within the State and further contending its statutory agent appointed pursuant to T.C.A. § 48-1201/02 is designated to receive process only for claims arising within Tennessee.
The issue here sought to be raised was recently considered by the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit in the case of W. D. Lawson v. Penn-Central Company, 456 F.2d 419 (6th Cir. 1972). There the Court held that T.C.A. § 20-220 was merely a procedural limitation and that a foreign corporation could be sued in Tennessee for a cause of action arising elsewhere on the basis of T.C.A. § 20-218. See also Beautytuft, Inc. v. Factory Insurance Association, 48 F.R.D. 15 (E.D.Tenn. 1969), affirmed, 431 F.2d 1122 (6th Cir. 1970). While the Court is aware that the statutory basis for the Lawson decision was removed by repeal of T.C.A. § 20-218 shortly after the entry of that decision (Public Acts of 1972, Chapter 565, § 1), it would appear from that Act that the legislative intent was merely to remove laws that might have been considered inconsistent with the recently adopted Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(7) allows service of process upon a defendant "in the manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the district court is held for the service of summons or other like process upon any such defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of that state." It would appear in this case that the service of process had upon the person in charge of the defendant's office in Chattanooga, Tennessee would comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04(4) wherein it is provided:
"Upon a domestic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. White Motor Credit Corp.
...Procedure 4.04(4).6See, e.g., Milan Express, 575 F.Supp. at 934 n. 1; Gullett, 417 F.Supp. at 497-98; Gallaher v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 367 F.Supp. 1063 (E.D.Tenn.1973); see also W.D. Lawson & Co. v. Penn Central Co., 456 F.2d 419 (6th Cir.1972) (the court held that T.C.A. § 20-......
-
Ratledge v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.
...limitation. Mitchell v. White Motor Credit Corp., 627 F.Supp. 1241, 1246 (M.D.Tenn.1986); see also Gallaher v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 367 F.Supp. 1063, 1065 (E.D.Tenn.1973) (“This Court is of the opinion that the Tennessee Supreme Court, when faced with the instant issue, will al......
-
Gullett v. Qantas Airways Ltd.
...of the ticket. Moreover, it does not appear to this court that T.C.A. § 20-220 is a substantive bar. In Gallaher v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 367 F.Supp. 1063 (E.D.Tenn. 1973), Judge Wilson held that T.C.A. § 20-220 and Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4.04(4) are procedural a......
-
Gillis v. Clark Equipment Co.
...in 4.04, T.C.A., § 20-220 would be totally inapplicable. The primary authority cited by plaintiff is Gallaher v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 367 F.Supp. 1063 (E.D.Tenn.1973). The federal district court in that case (T)his court is of the opinion that T.C.A. § 20-220 and Tennessee Rule......