Todd v. Harnischfeger Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 71181,71181 |
| Citation | 177 Ga.App. 356,340 S.E.2d 22 |
| Parties | TODD v. HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Richard D. Phillips, Ludowici, for appellant.
Stevan A. Miller, Theodore E.G. Pound, Randall H. Davis, Atlanta, for appellees.
On November 9, 1977, Loran E. Todd suffered extensive bodily injuries when a crane boom on which he was working suddenly dropped several feet and forced him against a building. He brought suit against Harnischfeger Corp., the manufacturer of the crane; Chatham Machinery Co., the distributor; Georgia Power Co.; and E.R. Van Horne, alleging that the crane was defective and unsafe, not reasonably suited to the use intended, and negligently maintained and operated. Harnischfeger is a foreign corporation incorporated in Delaware. It was authorized by the Secretary of State to transact business in Georgia on November 12, 1975, and C.T. Corporation System with offices located at 2 Peachtree St., Atlanta, was listed on its application as the proposed registered agent for service of process.
When the complaint was filed on November 2, 1979, the plaintiff was granted an order for service beyond the state, and personal service was made in Wisconsin upon C.T. Corporation System by the Dane County, Wisconsin, sheriff's office. On November 15, 1979, Todd's motion for service by publication was granted. Harnischfeger answered, raising the defenses of insufficiency of process, improper service of process, and lack of personal jurisdiction. The parties engaged in discovery, and on April 9, 1984, Harnischfeger filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. Harnischfeger's Atlanta agent, C.T. Corporation System, was personally served on April 23, 1984. Todd appeals the grant of this motion. Held:
Harnischfeger has been authorized to transact business in Georgia continuously since November 12, 1975, and has continuously maintained with the Secretary of State's office a registered agent for service of process. The registered agent and its office have not changed over the years. When the complaint was filed in 1979, Code Ann. § 22-1405 required each foreign corporation which sought a certificate of authority to transact business within this state to give the name and address of its proposed registered agent in Georgia. Code Ann. § 22-1408 required each foreign corporation which was authorized to transact business in this state to have and continuously maintain a registered office and a registered agent whose business office was identical with that of the registered office. Code Ann. § 22-1410 stated that each registered agent "shall be an agent upon whom any process, notice, or demand required or permitted to be upon the corporation may be served in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons and complaint." Code Ann. § 81A-104 defined the manner in which a summons and complaint were to be served. Subsection (d)(2) provided that in an action against a foreign corporation, service was to be made upon its "agent, cashier, or secretary or to the agent designated for service of process." As Harnischfeger did not have an agent, secretary, or cashier within the state, personal service was required to be made on its registered agent designated under the provisions of the Georgia Corporation Code.
Code Ann. § 81A-104(f) provided that "[a]ll process may be served within the territorial limits of the state and, when a statute so provides, beyond the territorial limits of the state." Appellant has cited no statute which would permit extraterritorial service upon the registered agent in another state. We find, therefore, that personal service upon Harnischfeger's agent in Wisconsin was improper and did not confer personal jurisdiction upon the court in Georgia.
The next question is whether the service by publication was valid. Code Ann. § 22-403(b), provided that whenever the registered agent could not be found with reasonable diligence at its registered office, a plaintiff would be authorized to serve the Secretary of State as agent for service of process. O'Neal Constr. Co. v. Lexington Developers, 240 Ga. 376, 240 S.E.2d 856 (1977); Frazier v. HMZ Property Mgt., 161 Ga.App. 195, 291 S.E.2d 4 (1982). In the instant case, there was no showing made that reasonable diligence failed to reveal that the registered agent was at its registered office. See also Code Ann. § 81A-104(e)(1). Moreover, there is no evidence that the complaint was served upon the Secretary of State as required by statute.
The final method of service attempted by the plaintiff was personal service upon C.T. Corporation System, which was not made for almost...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vibratech, Inc. v. Frost
...would be appropriate under both Delaware and Georgia law. OCGA §§ 9-11-4(e)(1), (7); 14-2-501(2). Compare Todd v. Harnischfeger Corp., 177 Ga.App. 356, 357, 340 S.E.2d 22 (1985) (service upon registered agent in foreign state improper where corporation maintains registered agent in Vibratec......
-
Ritts v. Dealers Alliance Credit Corp.
...sufficient under Georgia law to perfect service. The service upon a registered agent has to be personal. See Todd v. Harnischfeger Corp., 177 Ga. App. 356, 357, 340 S.E.2d 22 (1985). In addition, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Prentice-Hall acknowledged the mailed service of p......
-
McKinley v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
...has to be personal." Ritts v. Dealers All. Credit Corp., 989 F. Supp. 1475, 1478 (N.D. Ga. 1997) (citing Todd v. Harnischfeger Corp., 340 S.E.2d 22, 23-24 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)); see also Stone Exch. Inc. v. Surface Tech. Corp. of Ga., 605 S.E.2d 404, 405-06 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (O.C.G.A. § 14......
-
Cherokee Warehouses v. Babb Lumber Co., A00A0360.
...and ELLINGTON, J., concur. 1.Tolbert v. Maner, 271 Ga. 207, 208(1), 518 S.E.2d 423 (1999). 2. See id. 3. See Todd v. Hamischfeger Corp., 177 Ga.App. 356, 357, 340 S.E.2d 22 (1985) (physical precedent only) (as defendant "did not have an agent, secretary, or cashier within the state, persona......