White v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29503,29503 |
| Citation | 233 Ga. 919,213 S.E.2d 879 |
| Parties | Miriam T. WHITE v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
R. Alex Crumbley, F. Carter Tate, Weltner, Kidd, Crumbley & Tate, Atlanta, for appellant.
George E. Glaze, Glaze & Glaze, Thomas K. McWhorter, Jonesboro, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal challenges the constitutionality of that portion of Code Ann. § 56-1201(4) (), which fixes the venue for a suit on the bond of a sheriff or other arresting or law enforcement officer in the county of residence of such officer.
The action arose when appellant Miriam T. White filed suit in Fulton Superior Court for the alleged wrongful death of her husband occurring on March 12, 1973, in the Clayton County jail. Named as defendants were Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (FFIC) and Robert A. Deyton, the Sheriff of Clayton County, as surety and principal on the sheriff's public official bond, certain deputy sheriffs and a policeman with the Lake City police department, each a resident of Clayton County, and the John Doe Surety Company (the names of the sureties on the public official bonds of the deputy sheriffs and police officer being unknown to the plaintiff at the time of filing her suit).
Admitting an conceding that FFIC's principal place of business was in Fulton County, the defendants filed defenses and motions to dismiss asserting that proper venue for the action was in Clayton County, because under Code Ann. § 56-1201(4) a suit against a surety can only be brought in the county of residence of the law enforcement officer.
The plaintiff filed responses to the motions to dismiss contending that FFIC was subject to suit in Fulton County and since the other defendants were joint obligors or joint trespassers with the named surety and its principal, the sheriff, venue was properly in Fulton County under the Georgia Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. XIV, Par. IV; Code Ann. § 2-4904), and that Code Ann. § 56- 1201(4), being in conflict therewith, was unconstitutional. Art. VI, Sec. XIV, Par. IV (Code Ann. § 2-4904), supra, provides that 'Suits against joint obligors, joint promissors, copartners, or joint trespassers residing in different counties, may be tried in either county.'
After hearing, the Fulton Superior Court dismissed the complaint for improper venue as to all the defendants, holding that Code Ann. § 56-1201(4) was controlling and not unconstitutional for any of the reasons urged. Plaintiff appeals.
1. The FFIC bond on Sheriff Deyton provides in part that 'we bind ourselves . . . jointly and severally.'
In 1937, in Carlan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 183 Ga. 715(3), 189 S.E. 527, this court held that: 'The sheriff and his bondsman are such joint contractors or obligors that they may be sued in the county of the residence of either, for a violation of the bond,' citing Code §§ 3-204 and 56-601. Code § 3-204 is the statutory counterpart of the constitutional provision here in issue. Code Ann. § 2-4904.
Thus, the sheriff and his bondsman are joint obligors within the meaning of Code Ann. § 2-4904, which provides that suits against joint obligors residing in different counties may be tried in either county.
However, the other Code section cited in Carlan, § 56-601, has since been amended.
2. The Georgia Insurance Code of 1960 (Ga.L.1960, pp. 289-764, Code Title 56), enacted the following (p. 500, Code § 56-1201(4)): '(F)or the purpose of bringing suit under this subsection a company . . . which has become surety for the performance of an obligation in a particular county shall be deemed to be transacting business in such county and shall be deemed to be a legal resident of such county: Provided further that any action or suit on the bond of a sheriff, or other arresting or law enforcement officer . . . upon which any guaranty or surety company or fidelity insurance company is bound and obligated as surety, shall be instituted in the county of the residence of such officer, and not in any other county; and the county of the residence of such officer is hereby fixed as the venue of any action or suit on such bond.'
Appellant correctly argues that this court did not consider sheriffs' bonds in Dependable Insurance Co. v. Gibbs, 218 Ga. 305, 127 S.E.2d 454, where the validity of Code Ann. § 56-1201(4) was upheld against the constitutional attacks made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glover v. Donaldson
...a resident of a county for venue purposes under Code Ann. § 2-4306, the general venue-residence provision (White v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 233 Ga. 919(2), 213 S.E.2d 879 (1975); Dependable Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 218 Ga. 305, 308-309, 127 S.E.2d 454 (1962)); but the venue of a corporation prov......
-
Blue Gem Mfg. Co. v. Sanders
...in Cobb County. The sole issue raised in this appeal is determined by the recent decision of this court in White v. Firemen's Fund Insurance Company, 233 Ga. 919, 213 S.E.2d 879. In that case we held that the trial court properly dismissed the action for lack of venue in the Superior Court ......