Parker v. Southern Ry. Co
Decision Date | 11 October 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 29152.,29152. |
Citation | 17 S.E.2d 750 |
Parties | PARKER. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1941.
Second Motion for Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1941.
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the facts of this case the court erred in finding that the operation of the defendant's train in South Carolina did not involve a transaction which bore a direct relation to its business in Georgia, and in sustaining the plea to the jurisdiction, and in dismissing the action.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; A. L. Etheridge, Judge.
Action by T. E. Parker against the Southern Railway Company for personal injuries. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
T. E. Parker sued the Southern Railway Company in the superior court of Fulton County for an alleged tort. The petition alleged that at the time the suit was filed the plaintiff was a resident of Atlanta, Georgia; that the defendant was engaged in interstate commerce; that on or about September 9, 1938, the plaintiff was a switchman, employed by the defendant at Greenville, South Carolina, and that on that date he was assisting in the movement of a car which was loaded with merchandise which was consigned to some one at Oakland City, Georgia; and that the plaintiff was injured in connection with the movement of this car. The defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction in which as amended it was alleged that the plaintiff was a non-resident of the State of Georgia; that the suit was based on no transaction connected with the business of the defendant performed in Georgia, and that for the court to take jurisdiction would violate the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States because the State of Georgia would thereby deprive the defendant of property without due process of law, because the courts of Georgia do not have jurisdiction of such a cause of action as is claimed in this suit. It was stipulated that the defendant was chartered under the laws of the State of Virginia; that the occurrence in which the plaintiff was injured took place in South Carolina, and that the judge should try all the issues of law and fact without the intervention of a jury. The plaintiff introduced in evidence paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition and paragraph 7 of the answer, which were as follows: "Defendant admits the allegations of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition." The judge found that the plaintiff, at the time of the injury and at the time of the filing of the suit was a resident of South Carolina; that at the time and place of the injuries the defendant and the plaintiff were engaged in interstate commerce; and that that action was a transitory cause of action over which the courts of Georgia did not have jurisdiction; sustained the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the action. The plaintiff filed direct exceptions.
Hewlett & Dennis and T. F. Bowden, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Neely, Marshall & Greene, Edgar A. Neely, Jr., and W. Neal Baird, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The person acting as yard conductor on the date of the injuries testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial