GA Code § 50-2-21 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 50 - State Government|Chapter 2 - Boundaries and Jurisdiction of the State|Article 2 - Jurisdiction|§ 50-2-21. Jurisdiction Extends to All Persons Within State Limits; Court's Option to Decline Jurisdiction

  The jurisdiction of this state and its laws extend to all persons while within its limits, whether as citizens, denizens, or temporary sojourners.   A court of this state may decline to exercise jurisdiction of any civil cause of action of a nonresident accruing outside this state if there is another forum with jurisdiction of the parties in which the trial can be more appropriately held. In determining the appropriateness of this state or of another forum, the court shall take into account the following factors:   The place of accrual of the cause of action;   The location of witnesses;   The residence or residences of the parties;   Whether a litigant is attempting to circumvent the applicable statute of limitations of another state; and   The public factor of the convenience to and burden upon the court.     Upon a motion filed not later than 90 days after the last day allowed for the filing of the moving party's answer and upon the party's showing that the existing forum constitutes an inconvenient forum based on the factors listed in subsection (b) of this Code section and where there is another forum which can assume jurisdiction, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice to its being filed in any appropriate jurisdiction on any condition or conditions that may be just.    (Orig. Code 1863, § 23; Code 1868, § 21; Code 1873, § 21; Code 1882, § 21; Civil Code 1895, § 22; Civil Code 1910, § 22; Code 1933, § 15-202; Ga. L. 2003, p. 820, § 5.)   Cross references.   - Rights of citizens of other states and aliens while in state, § 1-2-9 et seq.    Grounds for exercising personal jurisdiction over nonresidents, § 9-10-91.   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 2003, p. 820, § 9, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that this Act "shall apply to all civil actions filed on or after July 1, 2003."   Law reviews.   - For article surveying developments in Georgia trial practice and procedure from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 275 (1981). For article, "Georgia's Domestic Relations Long-Arm Statute, Circa 1986," see 23 St B.J. 74 (1987). For annual survey of law of domestic relations, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 179 (1986). For annual survey of trial practice and procedure, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 383 (1986). For annual survey of trial practice and procedure, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 433 (2004). For note on the 2003 amendment to this Code section, see 20 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 28 (2003). For comment on White v. Henry, 232 Ga. 64, 205 S.E.2d 206 (1974), see 26 Mercer L. Rev. 317 (1974).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Lack of jurisdiction.    - Court has no jurisdiction over a case in which neither of the parties is, or has ever been in the state, or a citizen, or a resident of the state, or the owner of property in the state. House v. House, 25 Ga. 473 (1858).   Extent of jurisdiction.    - All persons found within the limits of a government are to be deemed citizens thereof, so that the right of jurisdiction, civil and criminal, will attach to such persons. Dearing v. Bank of Charleston, 5 Ga. 497, 48 Am. Dec. 300 (1848); Adams v. Lamar, 8 Ga. 83 (1850); Molyneux v. Seymour, Fanning & Co., 30 Ga. 440, 76 Am. Dec. 662 (1860).    Jurisdiction is to be so exercised as to conclude by judgment none but those who are parties. Dearing v. Bank of Charleston, 5 Ga. 497, 48 Am. Dec. 300 (1848); Adams v. Lamar, 8 Ga. 83 (1850).    Jurisdiction extends only where it is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. Johnston v. Riley, 13 Ga. 97 (1853).   Jurisdiction of nonresidents.    - Any court of any county of this state which can serve process on a nonresident, traveling through the state, acquires jurisdiction of that nonresident. Campbell v. Campbell, 67 Ga. 423 (1881).    Even though the allegations showed that the defendant was a resident of a foreign jurisdiction, yet when the defendant was personally served with process while sojourning within the state and the county in which the court was located, where the petitioner resided, the court acquired jurisdiction under former Code 1933, §§ 3-206 and 15-202 (see O.C.G.A. §§ 9-10-33 and50-2-21). Miller v. Miller, 216 Ga. 535, 118 S.E.2d 85 (1961).   Persons passing through state.    - Citizen of another state, passing through this state, may be sued in any county of this state in which the citizen may happen to be at the time when sued. Murphy v. John S. Winter & Co., 18 Ga. 690 (1855).    Person not a citizen, and temporarily sojourning in this state, may be sued in any county thereof in which the person may be found at the time the person is sued, for the jurisdiction of this state extends to "citizens, denizens, or temporary sojourners." Cheeley v. Fujino, 131 Ga. App. 41, 205 S.E.2d 83 (1974).   Service on nonresident held proper.    - Service of a petition for modification of child support upon a nonresident while the nonresident was visiting children in Georgia was proper. Hutto v. Plagens, 254 Ga. 512, 330 S.E.2d 341 (1985).   Foreign executors within limits of state.    - Foreign executors or administrators coming within jurisdictional limits of the state are liable to be sued here by creditors, or to be brought to an account by legatees or distributees. Johnson v. Jackson, 56 Ga. 326, 21 Am. R. 285 (1876).   Concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts.    - When the courts of this state and the courts of the United States have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matters and parties to a controversy, that tribunal which first actually takes the jurisdiction will retain jurisdiction. Hines & Hobbs v. Rawson, 40 Ga. 356, 2 Am. R. 581 (1869).    Jurisdiction of a state does not extend beyond the state's territorial limits; consequently, no personal judgment can be obtained against a nonresident unless the nonresident is served, so as to give the court jurisdiction, and that legal service cannot be perfected by forcing a nonresident defendant to come within the jurisdiction of the state in order to perfect personal service and thereby obtain jurisdiction. Lomax v. Lomax, 176 Ga. 605, 168 S.E. 863 (1933).   Presence of corporation makes it subject to jurisdiction.    - Corporation is for some purposes a citizen, and, if present, is no less subject to the jurisdiction than any other citizen of another state. Besides, a corporation, though a citizen of but one state, may be a resident also of other states. Louisville & N.R.R. v. Meredith, 66 Ga. App. 488, 18 S.E.2d 51 (1941), aff'd, 194 Ga. 106, 21 S.E.2d 101 (1942).   Service on agent of defendant corporation.    - Legal service may be perfected on a defendant railroad corporation which does business in this state, (i.e., has tracks in the state) by serving the corporation's soliciting freight agent who has an office in the county in which the suit is filed and service perfected, although the defendant does no business in the county other than that of the soliciting of freight. Louisville & N.R.R. v. Meredith, 66 Ga. App. 488, 18 S.E.2d 51 (1941), aff'd, 194 Ga. 106, 21 S.E.2d 101 (1942).   Jurisdiction of person or property.    - If the court gets jurisdiction of the person or property of a nonresident, the court will retain jurisdiction to administer justice to the court's own citizens. Callaway v. Jones & Quattlebum, 19 Ga. 277 (1856).   Full justice afforded to nonresidents.    - Nonresident invoking aid of court will be afforded as full justice as is consistent with the laws and policy of the state. Reeves v. Southern Ry., 121 Ga. 561, 49 S.E. 674, 70 L.R.A. 513, 2 Ann. Cas. 207 (1905); Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Burns, 17 Ga. App. 1, 86 S.E. 270 (1915).   Jurisdiction over property of nonresident.    - Courts have jurisdiction of a nonresident who owns property in a state, although the nonresident does not come within territorial limits. Molyneux v. Seymour, Fanning & Co., 30 Ga. 440, 76 Am. Dec. 662 (1860).   Seizure of nonresident defendant's property.    - Extent of available judicial relief in reference to alimony against a nonresident defendant, who is not personally served in this state, or does not acknowledge service, or who does not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the court by appearing and pleading, is confined to the seizure and utilization of such property as the defendant may own, situated within the jurisdiction of the court. Hicks v. Hicks, 193 Ga. 446, 18 S.E.2d 754 (1942).   Jurisdiction properly denied.    - Trial court properly dismissed a libel and slander action against a bank, an investment fund, and a supervisor as the supervisor gave the reference underlying the suit from a New York hotel room to an individual in the Netherlands, the law of the Netherlands controlled the case, most witnesses resided in the Netherlands, including the employee, and the supervisor had returned to the Netherlands at the time of the appeal; judicial notice was also taken of the deaths of the trial judge and the court reporter who had handled the case below, which, alone, satisfied O.C.G.A. § 50-2-21(b)(5). Triguero v. ABN AMRO Bank N.V., 273 Ga. App. 92, 614 S.E.2d 209 (2005).   Exemption from service of civil process.    - When there is pending in Florida a suit of A against B, and by stipulation of counsel for both parties, B comes into this state solely for the purpose of taking depositions, B is exempt from service of civil process while taking such depositions and during a reasonable time going and coming, even though the attorney for B testified that the purpose of taking the depositions was to make opposing counsel believe that B would not be present at the trial of the suit in Florida and there was no intention to use the depositions. Ewing v. Elliott, 51 Ga. App. 565, 181 S.E. 123 (1935).    If a person is present in a county other than that of the person's residence, for the sole purpose of attending the taking of depositions therein in a case to which the person is a party, and advantage is taken of the person's presence to serve process on the person in another action, to compel the person to defend the action in a jurisdiction other than that of residence, the service of such process should be quashed. Ewing v. Elliott, 51 Ga. App. 565, 181 S.E. 123 (1935).   Nonresident witness or party exempt from service.    - Nonresident witness or suitor in attendance upon the trial of any case in court is exempt from service of any writ or summons while so attending, and in going to, or returning from the court. Ewing v. Elliott, 51 Ga. App. 565, 181 S.E. 123 (1935).   Exemption from service extends to attendance at other tribunals.    - Privilege of exemption from service is not only assured while a nonresident is attending upon strictly judicial proceedings, but upon any tribunal whose business has reference to or is intended to affect judicial proceedings. Ewing v. Elliott, 51 Ga. App. 565, 181 S.E. 123 (1935).   Rule of nonresident immunity from service embraces wide scope of tribunals.    - Hearings before arbitrators, legislative committees, registers and commissioners in bankruptcy, and examiners and commissions to take depositions, are all embraced within the scope of application of the rule of nonresident immunity from service. Ewing v. Elliott, 51 Ga. App. 565, 181 S.E. 123 (1935).    Rule of nonresident immunity extends to every person who in good faith attends as a witness in any proceeding where testimony is to be taken according to the practice of the courts to be used in establishing the rights of a party in any judicial proceeding. Ewing v. Elliott, 51 Ga. App. 565, 181 S.E. 123 (1935).   Exemption where controlling purpose for entering state for depositions.    - In order for a nonresident to be immune from process under the rule of exemption, the nonresident's main and controlling purpose in coming into this state must be for the purpose of taking the depositions; this is the meaning of the term "good faith" when used in connection with this rule of exemption. Ewing v. Elliott, 51 Ga. App. 565, 181 S.E. 123 (1935).   Exemption from service must be claimed.    - Service on garnishee temporarily sojourning here as suitor in court was voidable, yet when there was no objection made to the service and no answer filed at either return or second term, default judgment was valid. Thornton v. American Writing Mach. Co., 83 Ga. 288, 9 S.E. 679, 20 Am. St. R. 320 (1889).   Question of jurisdiction not waived by appearance.    - In case of a judgment void for want of personal service of process, the defendant does not waive the question of jurisdiction or validate the void judgment by an appearance after judgment in support of a motion to set the judgment aside. Hicks v. Hicks, 193 Ga. 446, 18 S.E.2d 754 (1942).   Voluntary attendance to answer for misdemeanor is not privileged.    - Nonresident of the state, voluntarily attending a city court to answer to an accusation for a misdemeanor against the nonresident is not privileged from arrest under civil process nor exempt from service of civil process. Rogers v. Rogers, 138 Ga. 803, 76 S.E. 48 (1912).   Defendant in criminal case can be witness in own behalf.    - Each of the cases in which service of civil process upon a nonresident criminal defendant was upheld rested upon a rationale that under the law of this state then existing a defendant in a criminal case could not be a "witness" within the meaning of former Code 1933, § 38-1506 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-13-1) because a witness could not take the stand and be sworn on own behalf. These cases were no longer applicable in view of the enactment of former Code 1933, §§ 26-401, 27-405, 38-415 and 38-416 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 16-1-3(1)17-7-28, and24-5-506), which authorized a defendant to testify in a criminal case in this state. White v. Henry, 232 Ga. 64, 205 S.E.2d 206 (1974), commented on in 26 Mercer L. Rev. 317.   Immunity of nonresident defendant who appears voluntarily.    - Immunity should be extended to the nonresident criminal defendant who voluntarily appears in court to answer a criminal charge in Georgia. White v. Henry, 232 Ga. 64, 205 S.E.2d 206 (1974), commented on in 26 Mercer L. Rev. 317.    Cited in Shea v. Gehan, 70 Ga. App. 229, 28 S.E.2d 181 (1943); Curtis v. Curtis, 215 Ga. 367, 110 S.E.2d 668 (1959); Ward v. Ward, 223 Ga. 868, 159 S.E.2d 81 (1968); Edwards v. Edwards, 227 Ga. 307, 180 S.E.2d 358 (1971); Padgett v. Penland, 230 Ga. 824, 199 S.E.2d 210 (1973); Chalfant v. Rains, 244 Ga. 747, 262 S.E.2d 63 (1979); Williams v. Fuller, 244 Ga. 846, 262 S.E.2d 135 (1979); Gant v. Gant, 254 Ga. 239, 327 S.E.2d 723 (1985); Wegman v. Wegman, 338 Ga. App. 648, 791 S.E.2d 431 (2016).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 72 Am. Jur. 2d, States, Territories, and Dependencies, §§ 3, 4.   C.J.S.   - 81A C.J.S., States, §§ 34, 35.   ALR.    - Discretion of court to refuse to entertain action for nonstatutory tort occurring in another state or country, 32 A.L.R. 6; 48 A.L.R.2d 800.   Immunity of nonresident defendant in criminal case from service of process, 20 A.L.R.2d 163.