H. J. Heinz Co. v. Fortson

• Decision Date: 13 November 1939
• Docket Number: 27644.
• Citation: 6 S.E.2d 594,61 Ga.App. 52
• Parties: H. J. HEINZ CO. v. FORTSON.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

6 S.E.2d 594

61 Ga.App. 52

H. J. HEINZ CO. v. FORTSON.

No. 27644.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

November 13, 1939

A S. Skelton, of Hartwell, and Carter, Stewart & Johnson of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

J H. & Emmett Skelton and Carey Skelton, all of Hartwell for defendant in error.

GUERRY Judge.

In March, 1937, Mrs. L. A. Fortson, a resident of Georgia, brought attachment in Hart County, Georgia, against the H. J. Heinz Company, a nonresident, and sought to acquire jurisdiction of the defendant by service of summons of garnishment upon the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, also a nonresident, but with office and agent and place of business in Hart County.The garnishee answered that it was not indebted to the defendant in any sum whatever on any indebtedness arising in Georgia, but that it was indebted to certain large undetermined sums arising in other states.The defendant filed its plea to the jurisdiction alleging that it had no office or place of business or agent in Hart County, was not engaged in doing business in Georgia, and that the garnishee had answered that it was not indebted to the defendant; that under the answer there had been no legal service and that the superior court of Hart County had acquired no jurisdiction of the defendant, and that a certain designated court in a named foreign jurisdiction had jurisdiction of the defendant where it should be sued.A timely traverse having been filed to the answer of the garnishee, upon trial the court directed that the garnishee further answer as to what indebtedness the garnishee was owing the defendant"outside of the state of Georgia"; whereupon the garnishee amended its original answer and responded that it was indebted to the defendant"in connection with the business arising in other states outside of Georgia in a sum in excess of $3,000.00, the amount sued for in the present case".On January 30, 1939, at the December adjourned term, the court found against the plea, and the main case proceeded to trial and verdict for the plaintiff.The appeal is made to this court only upon exceptions assigning error to the order of the court finding against the plea to the jurisdiction.

In passing upon the assignment the sole question is whether the superior court of Hart County acquired jurisdiction of the nonresident defendant doing no business in Georgia and with no office on agent in Georgia, by service of summons of garnishment upon a nonresident garnishee where the garnishee answers that it is indebted to the defendant in attachment, in excess of a certain designated sum "in connection with the business arising in other states outside of Georgia".

It appears that the nonresident garnishee was doing business in Georgia, had an agent and office in Hart County, and was subject to the processes of the superior court of that county; and that it is only the sufficiency of the service in this case that is under attack, whether or not such service was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the court in an action pending, of the nonresident defendant doing no business in the state and without office or agent in said county or state.

The Code, § 8-502, a codification of Acts of 1904, page 100, and 1906, page 120, provides: "When a suit is brought by attachment against a nonresident of the State and the attachment is levied by service of summons of garnishment the situs of any debt due by the garnishee to the defendant shall be at the residence of the garnishee in this State, and any sum due to the defendant in attachment shall be subject to said attachment: Provided, that the writ of attachment shall not be used to subject wages of persons who reside out of the State, and which have been earned wholly without the State."The clarity of this section on the issue involved is so manifest, that any attempt at elucidation can be but of little aid.It...