Southern Nitrogen Co. v. Manuel

• Decision Date: 20 October 1964
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 40817,40817,1
• Citation: Southern Nitrogen Co. v. Manuel, 139 S.E.2d 453, 110 Ga.App. 597 (Ga. App. 1964)
• Parties: SOUTHERN NITROGEN COMPANY, Inc. v. C. L. MANUEL
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 453

139 S.E.2d 453

110 Ga.App. 597

SOUTHERN NITROGEN COMPANY, Inc. v. C. L. MANUEL.

No. 40817.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Oct. 20, 1964.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1964.

Hitch, Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, Luhr G C. Beckmann, Jr., Savannah, Anderson & Sanders, Cohen Anderson, Statesboro, for plaintiff in error.

Neville & Neville, William J. Neville, Statesboro, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

FRANKUM, Judge.

1. Ordinarily, where suit is brought against two alleged joint tortfeasors in a county where one of them resides, the other being a nonresident, and where on the trial of the case the resident defendant is found by the jury not liable, the court is without jurisdiction to render a judgment against the nonresident defendant, and if such judgment be rendered it may be arrested or set aside upon motion. Lee v. West, 47 Ga. 311(2); Hamilton v. Dupre, 111 Ga. 819(2), 35 S.E. 684; Warren v. Rushing, 144 Ga. 612(1), 87 S.E. 775; Southeastern Truck Lines, Inc. v. Rann, 214 Ga. 813, 108 S.E.2d 561.

2. Where, however, during the course of the trial, counsel for the nonresident defendant in his argument to the jury and by the submission of a written request to charge takes the position that the jury may return a verdict against the nonresident defendant, even though it may find the resident defendant not liable, and where the court thereafter instructs the jury in accordance with the written request and the jury returns a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and against the nonresident defendant alone, the nonresident defendant is estopped from asserting in a motion in arrest of judgment that the verdict and judgment against it are void and invalid on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction of its person. Davis v. Waycross Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 60 Ga.App. 390, 3 S.E.2d 863.

3. The principles enunciated in the foregoing headnote, insofar as they relate to the effect of a request to charge, are but a specific application of the broad general rule that a party will not be heard to complain of error induced by his own conduct, nor to complain of errors expressly invited by him during the trial of the case. Steed v. State, 123 Ga. 569(2), 51 S.E. 627; Caesar v. State, 127 Ga. 710(2), 57 S.E. 66; Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 737, 739(4), 82 S.E. 227; Norris v. State, 40 Ga.App. 232, 233(3), 149 S.E. 158.

4. Applying these principles to the facts in the case at bar, where it appears that the suit here involved was brought in the Superior Court of Bulloch County against alleged joint tortfeasors, one of whom was a resident of that county, and the other a...