Schmidlapp & Co. v. La Confiance Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 February 1884
• Citation: 71 Ga. 246
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: SCHMIDLAPP & COMPANY v. LA CONFIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

71 Ga. 246

SCHMIDLAPP & COMPANY v. LA CONFIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

February 2, 1884

September Term, 1883.

A foreign insurance company did business in South Carolina and Florida, but none in Georgia, and had no agency in the latter state. An agent of the company resided in Georgia, who audited and approved claims arising in South Carolina and Florida, gave checks for amounts due on account thereof, and when in funds, sometimes paid them:

Held, that the courts of Georgia had no jurisdiction of the company; and upon the facts above stated, a garnishment served upon the agent residing in this state was properly discharged.

Jurisdiction. Insurance. Corporations. Principal and Agent. Garnishment. Before Judge HAMMOND. Fulton Superior Court. April Term 1883.

Reported in the decision.

W. I HEYWARD, for plaintiffs in error.

VAN EPPS, CALHOUN & KING; J. C. REED, for defendants.

HALL Justice.

The plaintiffs sued out an attachment returnable to Fulton superior court against J. T. Seltzer & Co., upon the ground that they resided out of the state of Georgia, to-wit in the state of South Carolina. This attachment was levied by serving J. Gadsden King, alleged to be the agent of La Confiance Insurance Company, of Paris, France, with a summons of garnishment. In answer to this summons, King denied that he was agent of the Insurance Company, in the legal sense of that term; he stated that he acted as agent of the company for the states of South Carolina and Florida, but that the company transacted no business in the state of Georgia, and had no agency in the same; he admitted that he resided most usually in Atlanta, that he audited and approved claims against the company arising in South Carolina and Florida, gave checks for the amounts due on account thereof, and when in funds, sometimes paid them; and he submitted that the garnishee, La Confiance Insurance Company, was not within the jurisdiction of the court to which the attachment and garnishment were returnable, and prayed judgment as to this matter.

Not waiving this plea, but insisting on the same, he answered that the company was not indebted to, and had no funds or property in hand, in said state of Georgia, belonging to the defendants in attachment or either of them. Upon the coming in of this answer, the company, by its counsel, moved to discharge it; the plaintiffs' counsel demurred to this motion, and insisted that the facts set forth in the garnishee's answer were not sufficient in law to authorize its discharge. Upon the issue thus formed, the superior court decided in favor of the motion, and ordered the said garnishee to be discharged, and this decision is assigned as error.

We are at a loss to see upon what legal ground a contrary decision could have been put. The defendants in...