The Dahlonega Gold Mining Co. v. Purdy
| Citation | 65 Ga. 496 |
| Parties | The Dahlonega Gold Mining Company. v. Purdy. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1880 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
New trial. Jurisdiction. Foreign corporations. Before Judge Lester. Lumpkin Superior Court. September Term, 1879.
Reported in the decision.
Price & Baker; Marler & Perry, for plaintiff in error.
Wier Boyd; W. F. Findley, for defendant.
On the twentieth day of March, 1879, H. B. Purdy brought suit on a machinist's lien against the defendant, a foreign corporation, operating a gold mine in the county of Lumpkin.
It appears that the company was incorporated by the legislature of the state of New York, and on the first day of October, 1879, in the city of New York, by parol, employed Purdy, who was an expert machinist, to remove to Georgia and repair and put in good running order the gold mine works of the company; that the company was to pay Purdy fifty dollars and one thousand dollars in shares of the stock of the company per month, said stock to be transferred on the books of the company in New York. The lien was recorded as the law required, and suit brought thereon within twelve months, serving the superintendent of the corporation with process, copy, etc. *At the appearance term of the court the defendant filed pleas of the general issue, tender and forfeiture and damages, and a plea to the jurisdiction of the court.
At the September term, 1879, by agreement of the parties, the cause was tried before his honor Judge Lester as to all matters of law and fact, without a jury, and by order of said court the judge was to render judgment on the case at chambers.
Upon the trial of said cause before the judge, it was proved that said company on the first day of October, 1879, in the city and state of New York, made a contract with Purdy, agreeing to pay him fifty dollars, and one thousand dollars in shares of its stock per month, if he would come to Georgia and assist in repairing and running the gold mine property belonging to said company under the superintendent then in Georgia; employed him as a machinist, mechanic, mining engineer and miner. He came to Georgia, entered upon the work and remained until the first of January under the contract, when the contract was changed to $100 00 per month, without any shares of the stock. On the first of March Purdy was discharged, and he brought this proceeding to recover the value of his services. The defendant claimed that the said Purdy could not recover on the contract because it was made in the state of New York, and the court had no jurisdiction to try or give judgment against a foreign corporation upon a contract made beyond its limits. That the defendant had forfeited all interest in the contract on account of intemperance while engaged in the work, insisting that the contract was, that if he became drunk while in discharge of the work he had agreed to forfeit all interest in the wages and shares.
That his conduct while in their employment, inducing the hands to quit and to sue the company, and to become insub— ordinate was, in law, a sufficient reply to his right to recover, with other pleas not here necessary to mention.
*The judge, after hearing all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial