Sheet Metal Workers Intern. Ass'n v. Carter
| Decision Date | 18 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 33247,33247 |
| Citation | 244 S.E.2d 860,241 Ga. 220 |
| Parties | , 98 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2343, 83 Lab.Cas. P 55,122 SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. Ben CARTER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jacobs, Jacobs & Davis, Joseph Jacobs, James T. Langford, Atlanta, Lanier, Powell, Cooper & Cooper, Jack L. Cooper, Augusta, Mulholland, Lyman, McCormick, Fisher & Hickey, Donald W. Fisher, Toledo, Ohio, for appellant.
Kenneth R. Chance, William R. McCracken, Augusta, for appellee.
Certiorari was granted to review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a jury verdict and judgment for damages against the Sheet Metal Workers International Union following that organization's default in failing to file an answer to the complaint. See Sheet Metal Workers International Asso. v. Carter, 144 Ga.App. 48, 240 S.E.2d 569 (1977). In division 2, the Court of Appeals construed the meaning of certain words in Code Ann. § 3-119 (Ga.L.1959, pp. 44, 45) and held that the language permitting service of process upon "any officer or official member " of an unincorporated association or organization or of its local branch was properly complied with by service upon "a member who is listed on the official rolls of the union." (Emphasis supplied.) We hold this interpretation of the words "official member" is too broad to comport with the objectives of proper service and we reverse.
It is uncontested that service was made upon I. B. Holland, a rank and file member of Local 85, a local branch of appellant's union. Holland had never held any official position in Local 85 nor in the Sheet Metal Workers International Union. Following service, some time elapsed before Local 85, whose offices were in Atlanta, received word of the suit filed in Augusta, Richmond County, and the record shows notice to the International, whose offices were in Washington, D. C., was acknowledged 27 days following service on Holland. Appropriate motions to the jurisdiction, challenging service, were hastily filed within the time limit required for answering the complaint, however, counsel for the International in his haste applied federal rules of procedure and failed to file also an answer with the motions challenging service. Local 85 did answer, however, denying all of the essential allegations. Following a hearing on a motion by appellant to open default, the court denied the motion and entered a default judgment against it. On the eve of trial, appellee voluntarily dismissed Local 85 as a party defendant and, at trial, evidence was limited to the issue of damages.
The purpose of service of process is to give adequate notice of a claim against a defendant and to compel him to appear and answer. Code Ann. § 3-119 has been applied twice in recent history by the Court of Appeals in cases challenging service, i. e., American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees v. Rowe, 121 Ga.App. 99(1), 172 S.E.2d 866 (1970), and in Smith v. United Construction Workers, 106 Ga.App. 87(1), 126 S.E.2d 307 (1962). In the former case, service was held proper upon the parent union where service was perfected on two officers of a local branch of that union, and in the latter case, service was held proper on an "official member," a field representative, who had been appointed to his post by the president of the parent union to organize, take applications, service local unions, handle grievances, and help local unions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter, In re
...by the Georgia Supreme Court on the ground that the International was not validly served with process. Sheet Metal Workers' Inter. Ass'n v. Carter, 241 Ga. 220, 244 S.E.2d 860 (1978). The action was reinstituted and proper service on the International made, whereupon the International remov......
-
Metzler v. Rowell
...by serving them. This general allegation was directly refuted by the affidavits of Rowell and Routman. Sheet Metal Workers Intl. Assn. v. Carter, 241 Ga. 220, 244 S.E.2d 860 (1978), is not applicable here, as it does not permit service on mere "members" rather than "official members" as def......
-
Bosworth v. Cooney
...process is to give adequate notice of a claim against a defendant and to compel him to appear and answer." Sheet Metal Workers Int. Assn. v. Carter, 241 Ga. 220, 221, 244 S.E.2d 860. Under Code Ann. § 81A-108(b) (CPA § 8; Ga.L. 1966, pp. 609, 619, as amended through 1976, pp. 1047, 1048), i......
-
Jones v. Local 926 of Intern. Union of Operating Engineers
...by the NLRA. This case was again appealed after a jury trial and reversed on the question of service, Sheet Metal Workers, etc., Assn. v. Carter, 241 Ga. 220, 244 S.E.2d 860 (1978). However, the principles of law regarding preemption were not overruled and we view them as applicable In Cart......