Gentry v. Davis
| Decision Date | 01 July 1974 |
| Citation | 512 S.W.2d 4 |
| Parties | Shirley GENTRY, Appellant, v. Jim DAVIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
George H. Buxton, III, Buxton & Buxton, Oak Ridge, for appellant.
Roger L. Ridenour, Clinton, for appellee.
Pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. § 16--408, appellant has perfected a direct appeal to this Court from the dismissal of her suit by the Juvenile Court of Roane County. Appellant filed suit to bring appellee, a resident of Georgia, before the courts of Tennessee to declare him to be the father of her then unborn child, and to legitimate the child for the purposes of inheritance from the father. Though not so stated in the complaint, such suits are brought under authority of T.C.A. §§ 36--222 to 36--236. Appellant's complaint alleged that
'during the time biologically certain to have been the instant of conception, your Petitioner had sexual intercourse with your Defendant in Roane County, Tennessee, and with no other person.'
Appellee here appeared specially through his attorney and moved to dismiss the paternity petition on the basis of improper service of process. The court below found appellee's motion to be well taken and accordingly ordered the petition dismissed.
Defendants in paternity actions in Tennessee courts may be summoned and brought before the courts as in criminal cases, or in the discretion of the judge, as in civil cases. T.C.A. § 36--224. Service of process in the instant case was attempted as in civil cases, utilizing Tennessee's 'long-arm' jurisdictional statutes codified as T.C.A. §§ 20--235 to 20--242.
T.C.A. § 20--236 provides for service by registered mail by the office of the Secretary of State on non-resident defendants in specified actions listed in T.C.A. § 20--235. The provisions of the latter are as follows:
'Jurisdiction of persons unavailable to personal service in state--Classes of actions to which applicable.--Persons who are nonresidents of Tennessee and residents of Tennessee who are outside the state and cannot be personally served with process within the state are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any action or claim for relief arising from:
(a) The transaction of any business within the state;
(b) Any tortious act or omission within this state;
(c) The ownership or possession of any interest in property located within this state;
(d) Entering into any contract of insurance, indemnity, or guaranty covering any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting;
(e) Entering into a contract for services to be rendered or for materials to be furnished in this state.
(f) Any basis not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or of the United States.
'Person' as used herein shall include corporations and all other entities which would be subject to service or process if present in this state. Any such person shall be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of this state who acts in the manner above described through an agent or personal representative.'
We assume without deciding that jurisdiction in the present cause must be founded on sections (b) or (f) of the above statute. We quote from the only case our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Chandler
...v. Nelson, 298 Minn. 438, 216 N.W.2d 140 (1974); Poindexter v. Willis, 23 Ohio Misc. 199, 256 N.E.2d 254, 257-60 (1970); Gentry v. Davis, 512 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Tenn.1974); In Re Custody of Miller, 86 Wash.2d 712, 548 P.2d 542, 546-549 (1976), although it must be conceded the view has its dissent......
-
Custody of Miller, In re
...a legal liability, and may be denominated a tort within the scope of the long-arm statute. (Citation omitted.) Accord, Gentry v. Davis, 512 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Tenn.1974) (a filiation proceeding in which the long-arm statute was applied). In Nelson, the court concluded that the father's failure to......
-
State ex rel. McKenna v. Bennett
...The reasoning, however, is either Ipse dixit, State ex rel. Nelson v. Nelson, 298 Minn. 438, 216 N.W.2d 140 (1974), and Gentry v. Davis, 512 S.W.2d 4 (Tenn.1974), or fallacious, Poindexter v. Willis, supra. The Supreme Court of Colorado correctly identified the fallacy in the Poindexter cas......
-
Larsen v. Scholl
...under statute permitting assertion of jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the state or federal constitutions); Gentry v. Davis, 512 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Tenn.1974) (assuming without deciding that jurisdiction, which was held proper, was founded either on the act being a tort or on statu......