Gust v. Flint
| Citation | 356 S.E.2d 513,257 Ga. 129 |
| Decision Date | 04 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 44150,44150 |
| Parties | GUST, et al. v. FLINT. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
William R. Oliver, Oliver & Oliver, Clarkesville, for Roger W. Gust, et al.
Ernest H. Woods III, Clarkesville, for George H. Flint.
George Flint, a resident of Georgia, responded to an advertisement printed in a trade paper published in Nebraska and mailed to Flint in Georgia. Roger Gust and Twin Grove Trailers & Pate Tractor, Inc., of Madison, Wisconsin, had inserted the advertisement for a customized truck and trailer which attracted Flint's interest, and by long distance telephone the parties struck a bargain, pursuant to which Flint sent a $6,000 deposit toward the purchase price of the truck and trailer. After the deposit was received the sellers informed Flint that they could not deliver the truck and trailer he had ordered and attempted to persuade Flint to accept a substitute. When Flint refused to do so, the sellers refused to return his deposit.
Flint filed suit against the sellers in Georgia, predicating personal jurisdiction over the Wisconsin parties on OCGA Section 9-10-91, this state's long-arm statute. The out-of-state defendants, who were served personally in Wisconsin, moved to dismiss Flint's complaint, contending that under Georgia's long-arm statute they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in this state. The affidavits filed in support of the motion to dismiss, which were not traversed, showed that the defendants: (1) did not regularly do business or solicit business within the State of Georgia, (2) did not engage in any persistent course of conduct within the State of Georgia, (3) did not derive substantial revenue from services rendered within the State of Georgia, (4) the only business done by them in the State of Georgia is the transaction which is the subject of the instant action, (5) the only communications or connection they have had with the State of Georgia had been via telephone communication, (6) that neither they nor any of their employees have ever been located within the State of Georgia, (7) the corporate defendant is not domesticated in or authorized to do business in the State of Georgia and does not manufacture goods or produce any services in the State of Georgia. Thus, they demonstrated that they had done none of the acts which OCGA Section 9-10-91 requires as a basis for personal jurisdiction. (Flint later amended his complaint to add a claim for breach of contract.)
The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court had personal jurisdiction of the tort claim but not the claim for breach of contract, Flint v. Gust, 180 Ga.App. 904, 351 S.E.2d 95 (1986). We granted certiorari to determine whether the issue in this case is controlled by Coe & Payne Co. v. Wood-Mosaic Corp., 230 Ga. 58, 195 S.E.2d 399 (1973), and Clarkston Power Flow, Inc. v. Thompson, 244 Ga. 300, 260 S.E.2d 9 (1979), that is to say, by a literal construction of Georgia's long-arm statute.
The unrebutted affidavits filed in support of the out-of-state defendants' motion to dismiss clearly establish that the defendants have done none of the acts set forth in OCGA Section 9-10-91 which must be done in order to subject them to personal jurisdiction of a Georgia court. We need not discuss the relative merits of a "New York rule" or an "Illinois rule." The rule that controls is our statute, which requires that an out-of-state defendant must do certain acts within the State of Georgia before he can be subjected to personal jurisdiction. Where, as here, it is shown that no such acts were committed, there is no jurisdiction.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur, except SMITH, J., who dissents.
I agree with the judgment of the majority opinion and its analysis. However, I suggest there may be a valid reason to pursue the relative merits of the "New York rule" versus the "Illinois rule." To do so might tend to focus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diamond Crystal Brands v. Food Movers Intern.
...the State of Georgia before he can be subjected to personal jurisdiction.'" Id. at 353 (emphasis added) (quoting Gust v. Flint, 257 Ga. 129, 356 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1987)). We have not yet had the opportunity to address Innovative Clinical and its impact on our jurisprudence regarding Georgia'......
-
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mccall
...v. First Nat. Bank of Ames , 279 Ga. 672, 673, 620 S.E.2d 352 (2005) (citations and punctuation omitted). See also Gust v. Flint , 257 Ga. 129, 130, 356 S.E.2d 513 (1987) ("The rule that controls is our [Long Arm Statute], which requires that an out-of-state defendant must do certain acts w......
-
Hyperdynamics Corp. v. Southridge Capital Mgmt. LLC
...with due process. Innovative Clinical, etc. Svcs. v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 279 Ga. 672, 673, 620 S.E.2d 352 (2005); Gust v. Flint, 257 Ga. 129, 130, 356 S.E.2d 513 (1987). (A) The Georgia Long Arm Statute authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant “as to ......
-
Howell v. Komori America Corp.
...an action sounding in tort and this Court would not have personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant.4 See Gust v. Flint, 257 Ga. 129, 130, 356 S.E.2d 513 (1987) ("The rule that controls is our statute, which requires that an out of state defendant must do certain acts within the ......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby and Jason Crawford
...584 (1995). 212. Id. at 273, 454 S.E.2d at 585. 213. Id. at 275, 454 S.E.2d at 587. 214. Id., 454 S.E.2d at 586. 215. Id. 216. Id. 217. 257 Ga. 129, 356 S.E.2d 587 (1987). 218. White, 216 Ga. App. at 275, 454 S.E.2d at 586-87. 219. 213 Ga. App. 740, 445 S.E.2d 848 (1994). 220. Id. at 748, 4......
-
Torts - Cynthia Trimboli Adams and Charles R. Adams Iii
...550, 470 S.E.2d 236 (1996). 34. Id. at 551, 470 S.E.2d at 237. See Flint v. Gust, 180 Ga. App. 904, 351 S.E.2d 95 (1986); Gust v. Flint, 257 Ga. 129, 356 S.E.2d 503 (1987); Smith v. Air Ambulance Network, 207 Ga. App. 75, 427 S.E.2d 305 (1993); AAA. v. Lindburg, 172 Ga. App. 753, 324 S.E.2d......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby and Teresa T. Abell
...550, 470 S.E.2d 236 (1996). 34. Id. at 551, 470 S.E.2d at 237. See Flint v. Gust, 180 Ga. App. 904, 351 S.E.2d 95 (1986); Gust v. Flint, 257 Ga. 129, 356 S.E.2d 503 (1987); Smith v. Air Ambulance Network, 207 Ga. App. 75, 427 S.E.2d 305 (1993); AAA. v. Lindburg, 172 Ga. App. 753, 324 S.E.2d......
-
Getting Personal With Our Neighbors- a Survey of Southern States' Exercise of General Jurisdiction and a Proposal for Extending Georgia's Long-arm Statute
...exercising personal jurisdiction over the nonresident to the fullest extent permitted by constitutional due process"); Gust v. Flint, 356 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1987); Aero Toy Store, LLC v. differs from other Southern states whose long-arm statutes contain limiting language—such as "arising unde......