O. N. Jonas Co., Inc. v. B & P Sales Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 28508-28510,s. 28508-28510 |
| Citation | 206 S.E.2d 437,232 Ga. 256 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | O. N. JONAS COMPANY, INC. v. B & P SALES CORPORATION. O. N. JONAS COMPANY, INC. v. B & P DISTRIBUTORS OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, INC. O. N. JONAS COMPANY, INC. v. B & P DISTRIBUTORS, INC. |
Barnes & Little, Sam F. Little, Dalton, for appellant.
Warren N. Coppedge, Jr., Dalton, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This case (three actions involving the same issues) has to do with Georgia's Long Arm Statute. Code Ann. § 24-113.1.
The appellant procured default judgments against the appellees on January 15, 1973. Appellees were not residents of Georgia, and service had been perfected pursuant to Georgia's Long Arm Statute. Two days after the default judgments were entered, appellees brought these actions to set the judgments aside and enjoin their enforcement. Appellees also attacked Georgia's Long Arm Statute as being unconstitutional. On January 17, 1973, the trial judge granted an injunction temporarily prohibiting the enforcement of the default judgments. The trial judge then conducted a hearing and on April 12, 1973, he entered a judgment setting aside and vacating the default judgments that had been entered in favor of the appellant on January 15, 1973. The appellant has come here seeking review.
The appellant manufactured goods in Georgia and sold them to appellees who were not residents of the State of Georgia. A dispute arose between the parties with respect to payment for the goods sold and delivered to the appellees outside of the State of Georgia. Appellant brought actions below against the appellees in the Georgia forum and predicated jurisdiction and service on Georgia's Long Arm Statute, Code Ann. § 24-113.1. This statute provides in pertinent part as follows: 'A court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident . . . as to a cause of action arising from any of the acts . . . enumerated in this section, in the same manner as if he were a resident of this state, if in person or through an agent, he: (a) transacts any business within this state.' It is conceded that subparagraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this Code section are not applicable in this case.
The evidence showed that the only contacts the appellees had with the State of Georgia, with respect to the phrase 'transacts any business within this state,' were that agents of the appellees had visited the appellant's manufacturing plant in Georgia and the goods, subsequently purchased by appellees and shipped to appellees outside of the State of Georgia, were invoiced FOB shipping point. The evidence showed that none of the goods involved in these actions was purchased by the appellees during their agents' visit to appellant's Georgia plant. All goods involved in these actions were purchased by the appellees pursuant to purchase orders placed either by mail or telephone and the orders originated outside of the State of Georgia. No contracts with respect to the sale and purchase of the goods involved were executed in the State of Georgia.
It is the appellant's contention that visits by appellees' agents to the appellant's plant in Georgia which eventually resulted in the purchases plus shipment of the goods FOB shipping point are sufficient contacts with the State of Georgia to constitute transacting 'any business within this state' by the appellees pursuant to Code Ann. § 24-113.1(a).
The appellant relies on three relatively recent cases decided by this court, Coe and Payne Company v. Wood-Mosaic Corp., 230 Ga. 58, 195 S.E.2d 399 (1973); J. C. Penney Company v. Malouf Company, 230 Ga. 140, 196 S.E.2d 145 (1973); and Davis Metals, Inc. v. Allen, 230 Ga. 623, 198 S.E.2d 285...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Irwin
...Avakian, 581 F.2d 1224 (5th Cir. 1978); Pennington v. Toyomenka, Inc., 512 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1975); and O. N. Jonas Co. v. B. & P. Sales Corp., 232 Ga. 256, 206 S.E.2d 437 (1974), to support his contention that his one visit in 1976 is insufficient to support and exercise in personam juri......
-
Shellenberger v. Tanner
...state even though there may be some 'connection' between the forum plaintiff and the nonresident defendant. O. N. Jonas Co., Inc. v. B & P Sales Corp., 232 Ga. 256, 206 S.E.2d 437. Thus it is seen that a showing that a nonresident defendant has 'transacted any business' in Georgia, as that ......
-
Diamond Crystal Brands v. Food Movers Intern.
...Georgia, and that can be considered for the purposes of O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(1). 620 S.E.2d at 355; but see O.N. Jonas Co. v. B & P Sales Corp., 232 Ga. 256, 206 S.E.2d 437, 439 (1974) ("The goods were shipped [F.O.B. Georgia] ... and, as we read this record, that is the only contact that app......
-
General Elec. Credit v. Scott's Furniture Warehouse
...as requiring something more than constitutional due process. Irving, 595 F.Supp. at 538-539, citing, O.N. Jonas Company, Inc. v. B & P Sales Corp., 232 Ga. 256, 206 S.E.2d 437 (1974); Wise v. State Board for Examination, Qualification & Registration of Architects, 247 Ga. 206, 274 S.E.2d 54......