Storey v. Seffelaar & Looyen, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 54070,54070,1 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | F. W. STOREY v. SEFFELAAR & LOOYEN, INC |
Storey & Obenschain, Robert W. Storey, Atlanta, for appellant.
Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Regenstein, Susan A. Cahoon, Edmund M. Kneisel, Atlanta, for appellee.
This is a suit for breach of contract for personal services between the plaintiff and his former nonresident employer, a Michigan corporation, after the termination of his employment.
After discovery defendant moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction based upon evidence in the record allegedly showing that service in the State of Michigan upon the nonresident under the "long arm statute" (Code Ann. § 24-113.1; Ga.L. 1966, p. 343; 1970, pp. 443, 444) failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The motion to dismiss was granted, the lower court holding that the alleged contract of employment, forming the subject matter of this law suit, was negotiated and entered into in the State of Michigan, was largely to be performed outside the State of Georgia, and the limited and purposeful activity of the plaintiff in the performance of the contract within this state was so limited until the exercise of extra territorial jurisdiction over the defendant in this case would offend notions of fair play and justice and would not be permissible under the constitution and governing laws of this state. Plaintiff appeals. Held :
The evidence shows that plaintiff was employed as a salesman partially on salary and partially on commission; that he requested to establish his residence in Atlanta, his territory being the southern and southeastern United States area, the defendant agreeing to defray a portion of his apartment rent and to reimburse him for expenses of telephone and expenses for renting a desk. The evidence also shows that he was never authorized to execute any contracts for services or equipment but his authority was limited to the solicitation of orders for such equipment subject to subsequent approval in Holland, Michigan, and that the defendant has never established an office or warehouse in the State of Georgia nor has it owned other tangible or intangible property located in Georgia nor has it entered any contract with persons in Georgia for the sale or shipment of its equipment into Georgia. The evidence shows that between the date of termination of employment with defendant on September 12, 1975 and approximately the middle of April, 1976, plaintiff received unemployment compensation from the State of Michigan. The evidence further shows that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lyons Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Gross, Civ. A. No. CV681-28.
...over defendant if he had performed some service under the employment contract in Georgia. See id. Cf. Storey v. Seffelaar & Looyen, Inc., 142 Ga.App. 873, 237 S.E.2d 236 (1977); Unistrut Georgia, Inc. v. Faulkner Plastics, Inc., 135 Ga.App. 305, 217 S.E.2d 611 Clearly, however, no such juri......
-
Brooks Shoe Mfg., Inc. v. Byrd, 54855
...outside of Illinois was not to be performed in Illinois and was governed by Connecticut law). Our decision in Storey v. Seffelaar & Looyen, Inc., 142 Ga.App. 873, 237 S.E.2d 236 does not require a contrary result. There, the nonresident corporation's activities were "unaccompanied by a loca......
-
Pascavage v. Can-Do, Inc.
...is suing it for commissions earned in part by virtue of his work in Georgia on behalf of the corporation. Storey v. Seffelaar & Looyen, Inc., 142 Ga.App. 873, 237 S.E.2d 236 (1977), on which defendants rely, is not controlling. There the court found insufficient contacts from solicitation i......