DuGrenier, Inc., v. Stone

Full title: ARTHUR H. DuGRENIER, INC., Appellant, v. COE STONE, Appellee

Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Jackson, April Term, 1967

Date published: May 22, 1967

220 Tenn. 255 (Tenn. 1967)

415 S.W.2d 883

Opinion

Opinion filed May 22, 1967.

APPEAL AND ERROR

A decree overruling a plea in abatement on ground that "long-arm" statute was invalid was not an interlocutory decree from which an appeal would lie. T.C.A. secs. 20-235 to 20-240, 27-305; Public Acts 1965, c. 67.

FROM SHELBY

JAMES D. CAUSEY, Memphis, for appellant.

PAUL W. DENTON, Memphis, for appellee.

Massachusetts corporation, sued under "long-arm" statute for liquidated damages for conversion of certain coin vending machines, filed a plea in abatement on ground the statute was unconstitutional. The Chancery Court of Shelby County, Robert L. Taylor, Chancellor, overruled the plea and granted defendant a discretionary appeal. The Supreme Court, Chattin, Justice, held that a decree overruling a plea in abatement is not an interlocutory decree from which an appeal will lie.

Appeal dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE CHATTIN delivered the opinion of the Court.Page 256

Appellee, Coe Stone, filed this bill against the appellant, Arthur H. DuGrenier, Inc., for liquidated damages for the conversion of certain coin vending machines. The bill was filed on June 10, 1966, and alleged that on October 5, 1963, the defendant, a Massachusetts corporation not qualified nor domesticated to do business in this State, seized and confiscated the machines in Memphis. Complainant alleged this was a transaction of business in this State and a tort within the meaning of Chapter 67 of the Public Acts of 1965, known as Tennessee's new "Long-Arm" statute.

Services of process was obtained on the defendant under the Act codified as T.C.A. Sections 20-235 through 20-240, inclusive.

The defendant filed a plea in abatement on the ground the legislation was unconstitutional.

The Chancellor overruled the plea and granted defendant a discretionary appeal.

We must dismiss the appeal as being premature. A decree overruling a plea in abatement is not an interlocutory decree from which an appeal will lie under T.C.A. Section 27-305. Thus, this Court has not acquired jurisdiction in the instant case. Citizens' Bank and Trust Co. v. Bayles, 153 Tenn. 40, 281 S.W. 932 (1925); Employers' Indemnity Co. v. Willard, 125 Tenn. 288, 151 S.W. 1029 (1911); Younger v. Younger, 90 Tenn. 25, 16 S.W. 78 (1890).

The appeal is dismissed at the cost of appellant.

BURNETT, CHIEF JUSTICE, DYER and CRESON, JUSTICES, and HARBISON, SPECIAL JUSTICE, concur.