Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc. v. Rann, 20389

• Decision Date: 09 April 1959
• Docket Number: No. 20389,20389
• Citation: 214 Ga. 813,108 S.E.2d 561
• Parties: SOUTHEASTERN TRUCK LINES, INC., et al. v. George M. RANN et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 561

108 S.E.2d 561

214 Ga. 813

SOUTHEASTERN TRUCK LINES, INC., et al. v. George M. RANN et al.

No. 20389.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 9, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a single suit is brought against several joint tort-feasors in a county where one of them is a resident, and where the others reside outside of the county, and where on the trial of the case, the resident defendant is found not liable by the jury, and the nonresident defendants are found liable, the court is without jurisdiction to enter a judgment against the nonresident defendants.

Paul F. Akin, Warren Akin, Cartersville, for plaintiffs in error.

J. R. Cullens, Cartersville, for defendants in error.

ALMAND, Justice.

George M. Rann, Ralph Rann, and Mrs. Louise Rann Greeson filed their petition in the Superior Court of Paulding County against Horace C. Dennis, as administrator of the estate of Mrs. Ruth Rann Dennis, Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc., and Bryant Ernest Landis, Jr., to recover damages for the wrongful death of the plaintiffs' wife and mother, Mrs. George M. Rann, which occurred as the result of a motor vehicle collision in Bartow County, Georgia, between an automobile driven by Mrs. Ruth Rann Dennis, in which the plaintiffs' decedent was a guest passenger, and a truck owned by Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc., and operated by its servant and employee, Landis; said accident allegedly being caused by the joint and concurrent acts of negligence of the defendant Dennis' decedent and the defendant Landis, as servant and employee of the defendant Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Dennis was a resident of Paulding County, and that the defendants Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc., and Landis were nonresidents, and were subject to the jurisdiction of the Paulding Superior Court by virtue of being joined with a resident defendant. Plaintiffs' prayers were that service be perfected upon the defendant Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc., a foreign motor common carrier, incoporated under the laws of Tennessee, by service upon its duly appointed agent as provided for under Code § 68-618; that defendant Landis, a resident of the State of Tennessee, be served under the provisions of Code (Ann.) § 68-803; that service be perfected upon the estate of Mrs. Ruth Rann Dennis; and that plaintiffs have judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for $75,000.

Defendants answered the action, the case proceeded to trial, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the two nonresident defendants, the jury finding that the resident defendant was not liable. The form of the verdict was, 'We the jury find for the plaintiffs against the defendants Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc., and Bryant Ernest Landis, Jr., $50,000.00, this November 6, 1958.' Judgment was entered on the verdict, whereupon the defendants filed their motion to set aside said judgment on the ground that, when the jury determined that the resident defendant was not liable, such determination established, as a matter of law, that the court had no jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants. Error is assigned on the order of the court denying the motion to set aside the judgment. The case is before this court for the reason that the constitutionality of the act of 1937 (Ga.L.1937, p. 732, Code Ann. § 68-801 et seq.), as amended, is brought into question by the motion to set aside the judgment as amended.

Code § 68-618, under which the defendant Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc. was served, provides: 'Action against motor common carriers, except in those cases where the Constitution otherwise provides, may be brought and maintained in any county or militia district where the action could be brought if the defendant were a railroad company being sued upon a like cause of action.' As to the venue of suits against railroad companies, the Code, § 94-1101, provides: All railroad * * * companies shall be sued by anyone whose person or property has been injured by such railroad * * * company, its officers, agents or employees, for the purpose of recovering damages for such injuries, in the county in which the cause of action originated.' A foreign motor common carrier, engaged in the business of trucking, hauling, and transporting freight over the various public highways within the State, and having designated a resident agent upon whom service of process can be made, under the clear mandate of Code § 68-618, is, "so far as the right to sue is concerned, a resident' of this State, and a resident of the county in which the cause of action originated, 'so far as the right to bring a suit against it for a cause of action originating in that county is concerned," Boone Co. v. Owens, 51 Ga.App. 739(1), 181 S.E. 519, 520; and, 'within the true intent and spirit of the constitutional provision' [art. 6, Sec. 14, Par. 4, Code Ann. § 2-4904, providing that, 'suits against joint obligors, joint promissors, copartners, or joint trespassers, residing in different counties, may be tried in either county],' it resides in that county. Southern Ry. Co. v. Grizzle, 124 Ga. 735, 740, 53 S.E. 244.

Since the cause of action in the instant case originated in Bartow County, the only basis, under the record in the case, upon which the Superior Court of Paulding County could have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc., was by the joining of said defendant with a resident defendant, as joint tortfeasors under the provisions of art. 6, sec. 14, par. 4 of the Constitution (Code Ann. § 2-4904); and once the jury found in favor of the resident defendant, the court could no longer retain jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc., to enter judgment against it. For it is well settled law in this State that, where a single suit is brought against several joint tortfeasors in a county where one of them is a resident, and where the others reside outside the county, and, where on the trial of the case, the resident defendant is found not liable by the jury, and the nonresident defendants are found liable, the court is without jurisdiction to enter judgment against the nonresident defendants. Rounsaville v. McGinnis, 9o Ga. 579(1), 21 S.E. 123; Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 113 Ga. 414(3), 38 S.E. 989; Warren v. Rushing, ...