Court Opinion

ID: 9586097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:07:10.908829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:20.248848
License: Public Domain

Wyatt, Presiding Justice,
dissenting. 'For reasons hereinafter stated, I can not agTee with the opinion of the majority in this case. This case was tried upon a stipulation as to the facts. It was stipulated that Bagwell & Stewart, Inc., was a resident of Cherokee County, having its main office and legal residence in said county; that Leland H. Bagwell was the president, general manager, and treasurer of the corporation, and owned all its stock, and that he was a resident of Cherokee County; that the corporation operates the rendering plant in question in *118Forsyth County; that the books and records of Bagwell & Stewart, Inc., with the exception of time cards and delivery tickets, are kept at the main office in Cherokee County; that the time cards and delivery tickets made at the plant are transmitted to the office of the corporation in Cherokee County; that Leland H. Bagwell spends an average of 25 to 30 hours per week at the plant in Forsyth County supervising, directing, and controlling the operation of said plant.
In so far as the activities of Robert Gibson, the only defendant who is a resident of Forsyth County, are concerned, the stipulation of facts reads as follows: “That Robert Gibson is the main foreman in the operation of said plant in Forsyth County, and that he has three sub-foremen working under him at times when he is not at the plant, and that he gives the orders and directions for the work done at the plant when Mr. Leland H. Bagwell is absent, all being under the general direction and supervision of the said Leland H. Bagwell. That Robert Gibson hires and fires employees at the plant, subject to the approval of Leland H. Bagwell, and at times does hire and put to work employees without previous consultation with said Bagwell, but all such hiring is subject to the ratification of Leland H. Bagwell.
“Par. 3. That Robert H. Gibson lives in Forsyth County, Georgia, and is subject to call in the operation of said plant for 24 hours in the day; that when anything goes wrong with the plant he is subject to call day or night, and is some times called three or four times in one night. Robert Gibson also performs manual labor in and about the plant as and when required. That in the Forsyth County News, a newspaper published at Cumming, Forsyth County, Georgia, Thursday, October 10th, 1957, there appeared the following advertisement:
'Wanted — Good maintenance mechanic for rendering plant. Apply North Georgia Rendering Company, or Robert Gibson, Ph. 5035, Cumming, Georgia or L. H. Bagwell, Ph. Canton, Georgia, 9-3353.’
“Said advertisement was placed in the Forsyth County news by Leland H. Bagwell, by and for Bagwell & Stewart.”
The Constitution of the State of Georgia, art. 6, sec. 14, par. 3 (Code, Ann., § 2-4903) provides: “Equity cases shall be tried in the county where a defendant resides against whom sub*119stantial relief is prayed.” The instant case, being one in equity, must come within the terms of this provision if the courts of Forsyth County are to. have jurisdiction. “Under the Constitution, art. 6, sec. 16, par. 3 (Code, § 2-4303) equity cases must be brought in the county wherein resides a defendant against whom substantial relief is prayed. This means substantial equitable relief.” Fowler v. Southern Airlines, 192 Ga. 845 (2) (16 S. E. 2d 897).
“The mere fact of praying for an injunction against a defendant does not in all events confer the right to file the equitable petition in the county of his residence, or to draw to that county residents of other counties.” Fowler v. Southern Airlines, supra, p. 851.
“Chason could properly have been sued in Decatur county as a joint trespasser with the other defendants, but jurisdiction to entertain this common-law suit against the residents of Decatur county and a resident of Thomas county would not draw to it the right to entertain jurisdiction of a claim for equitable relief against the nonresident, in which no other defendant was at all interested.” Townsend v. Brinson, 117 Ga. 375 (43 S. E. 748).
“An equitable petition against two defendants residing in different counties in this State, brought in the county of the residence of one of them, where it is apparent that the only substantial relief sought is against the nonresident defendant, is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. [Citing cases.] If relief be sought against the resident defendant which is merely collateral or incidental, this will not suffice to give the court jurisdiction. The relief prayed for against him must be substantial.” Beacham v. Cullens, 194 Ga. 739, 742 (22 S. E. 2d 508).
“An equitable petition against two defendants residing in this State, brought in the county where one of them resides, from which together with the prayers it is apparent that the only substantial relief sought is against the nonresident defendant, and that the sole resident defendant individually has no connection with the alleged cause of action, and no act or claim by him is involved except as agent of the other defendant, is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction.” Grace v. Interstate Bond Co., 193 Ga. 810 (1) (20 S. E. 2d 131). See also McClellan & *120Co. v. American Tie &c. Co., 135 Ga. 370 (69 S. E. 486). See also Ellis v. Lamar, 44 Ga. 9.
In the instant case, the only resident of the county in which the suit was brought, under the stipulation of facts, was nothing but an employee of the nonresident defendants. He owned no interest in the business, and all of his activities were subject to the direction of the nonresident defendants. He could be nothing but a nominal party. Complete relief could be obtained in the courts of the county of the nonresidents, who were the owners and operators of the business sought to be enjoined as a nuisance. It seems clear that the Superior Court of Forsyth County has no jurisdiction of this controversy.
Plaintiffs in error cite and rely upon Baggett v. Linder, 208 Ga. 590 (68 S. E. 2d 469). There this court was dealing with a trespass. Art. 6, sec. 14, par. 4 of the Georgia Constitution (Code, Ann., § 2-4904) expressly provides that suits against joint trespassers residing in different counties may be tried in either county. The instant case is not a trespass case, but is a suit to enjoin the operation of a business as a nuisance. Therefore, that case, as well as the other trespass cases cited, has no application to the case now under consideration. The plaintiffs in error quote language from some of the cases cited to the effect that “joint wrong doers” living in different counties may be sued in either county. An examination of the cases from which this language was taken discloses that in each case the court was dealing with a trespass.
It follows, the judgment under review ought to be affirmed,, and I dissent from the judgment of reversal by the majority.