Spiegel, Inc. v. Odum
| Decision Date | 10 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59032,59032 |
| Parties | SPIEGEL, INC. v. ODUM. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sewell K. Loggins, Douglas N. Campbell, Atlanta, for appellant.
Ronald L. Hilley, Robert Carpenter, Atlanta, for appellee.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant-Spiegel, Inc., a foreign corporation, for defamation of credit, serving process upon defendant by leaving a copy of the complaint with the Secretary of State of Georgia, as alleged agent for Spiegel, Inc. Upon defendant's failure to respond to the complaint or appear in court, a default judgment was entered and a jury verdict returned against defendant in the amount of $13,500. It is from the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment under Code Ann. § 81A-160(d) that defendant brings this appeal. We reverse.
Plaintiff-appellee does not challenge appellant's contention that its activities (which concern the operation of a mail order catalog merchandising operation) do not constitute the "transaction of business" within the State of Georgia so as to necessitate such corporation's qualification under Code Ann. § 22-1401(a). Indeed, it is clear that under § 22-1401(b)(6) it was not incumbent upon defendant-foreign corporation to secure a certificate of authority to transact business in Georgia or to appoint or maintain registered agents in Georgia to receive service of process. Appellee argues, however, that under the authority of § 22-1410(b), regardless of whether or not defendant was required to be "qualified" in Georgia, service of process could be perfected upon defendant through the office of the Secretary of State upon defendant's failure to appoint and maintain an agent in Georgia to receive process. We disagree.
American Photocopy, etc., Co. v. Lew Deadmore, etc., Inc., 127 Ga.App. 207(4), 193 S.E.2d 275, specifically sets out the numerous ways in which service of process can be made upon an unqualified foreign corporation, noting that Code Ann. § 22-1410 applies to qualified foreign corporations (corporations authorized to transact business), including (impliedly) those foreign corporations which should be qualified but have failed either to obtain a certificate to transact business or to appoint registered agents for service as required by law.
Since appellant is concededly neither a "qualified" corporation (it has not been issued a certificate of authority to transact business) nor within the category of those foreign corporations required to obtain such a certificate, service of process cannot be made upon defendant under the authority of Code Ann. § 22-1410(b).
Indeed, the plain wording of Code Ann. § 22-1410(b) militates against appellee's interpretation that all foreign corporations, regardless of whether or not they are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Health Horizons v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO.
...foreign corporation that obtains a certificate of authority is subject to service under OCGA § 14-2-1510. See Spiegel, Inc. v. Odum, 153 Ga.App. 380, 381-382, 265 S.E.2d 297 (1980). Registration of a foreign corporation makes it easier for the State Revenue Commissioner to collect taxes fro......
-
Cartel Asset Mgmt. Inc. v. Altisource Portfolio Solutions
...and should have obtained a certificate. Howard v. Technosystems Consol. Corp., 244 Ga. App. 767, 769 (2000) (citing Spiegel, Inc. v. Odum, 153 Ga. App. 380, 382 (1980)); see also Tomlin v. White Dairy Ice Cream Co., Inc., 13 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (S.D. Ga. 1997). Finally, the Plaintiff has prese......
-
Al & Dick, Inc. v. Cuisinarts, Inc.
...158 Ga.App. 650, 281 S.E.2d 636 (1981); Camp v. Sellers & Co., Ltd., 158 Ga.App. 646, 281 S.E.2d 621 (1981); Spiegel, Inc. v. Odum, 153 Ga.App. 380, 265 S.E.2d 297 (1980). Cuisinarts has admittedly never qualified to do business in Georgia and thus has never been issued a Certificate of Aut......
-
Delta Intern. Machinery Corp. v. Plunk
...was not required to appoint an agent for service of process here, we do not reach this issue. See generally Spiegel, Inc. v. Odum, 153 Ga.App. 380, 265 S.E.2d 297 (1980). Instead, we conclude that, even assuming substituted service on the Secretary of State was authorized, such service was ......