Digital Commons @ Georgia Law

Popular Media Faculty Scholarship

10-1-1975 Current Problems with Venue in Georgia C. Ronald Ellington University of Georgia School of Law, [email protected]

Repository Citation Ellington, C. Ronald, "Current Problems with Venue in Georgia" (1975). Popular Media. 79. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_pm/79

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Popular Media by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. Current Problems With Venue In Georgia by C. Ronald Ellington Georgia's first constitution, the included an explicit provision constitutional right."6 This state- Constitution of 1777, contained governing the place of venue for ment by Justice Lumpkin still a section providing that "all mat- equitable actions," and with the aptly describes tile prevailing ju- ters in dispute between contend- adoption of the Constitution of dicial attitude toward Georgia's ing parties, residing in different 1868, 4 all the present-day rules venue requirements. counties, shall be tried in the of venue had been fixed as part On the other hand, over the county where the re- of the fundamental law of the years many of the rules govern- sides, except in cases of real state." ing practice and procedure estate, which shall be tried in There were, notwithstanding in Georgia have been modern- the county where such real the hierarchy of the venue rules ized and revised in keeping with estate lies."' The practice of in our structure of laws, some contemporary needs and con- specifying rules of venue in the early objections from members cerns.7 In 1966 the General As- constitution thus dates from the of the Bar that these venue rules sembly adopted the Civil Prac- very beginning of our state and were being applied in an overly tice Act, Rule 1 of which pro- has been repeated and expanded technical way that worked to claims that its provisions "shall in subsequent constitutional re- defeat, rather than further, the be construed to secure the just, visions. The Constitution of cause of justice. These objec- speedy, and inexpensive deter- 1798, for example, added the rule tions were met in 1906 by the mination of every action."' Two that joint obligors, residing in firm rejoinder of Justice Lump- important provisions in the CPA different counties, may be sued kin that "the right to be sued in for promoting judicial economy in the county of residence of the proper county is not merely and efficiency are Rule 14 gov- either.2 The Constitution of 1861 technical, but is a substantial, erning and Rule 13

VOL. 12 / NO. 2 / OCTOBER 1975 HeinOnline -- 12 Ga. St. B. J. 71 1975-1976 dealing with . often publicized backlog in trial to contribution could be proced- Impleader, or third-party prac- calendars, the time has urally enforced through an im- tice, is the procedure by which come for a critical assessment pleader action, the supreme court a defendant can bring into the of the interaction of venue and ruled that such an action was in action one that he claims is lia- the rules authorizing impleader the nature of an independent ble to him for all or part of and counterclaims in the CPA. suit that could be maintained 's claim against him. only in the county of the resi- Impleader and the Legacy of dence of the alleged joint tort- Similarly, Rule 13 seeks to Register v. Stone feasor."4 This conclusion, rea- promote the of claims to soned the court, was demanded expedite the resolution of all the In the well-known case of Register v. Stone's Independent because under the constitution controversies between the par- 1 2 a defendant is entitled to be sued ties in one suit to avoid a circuity Oil Distributions, Inc. the su- preme court held that venue in the county of his residence of actions and multiple litigation. must be independently estab- and a procedural rule in the CPA To these ends Rule 13(h) author- lished before third-party defen- could not expand the venue of izes the joinder of additional 5 parties for dants could be impleaded under such actions." the purpose of adju- The result in Register has been dicating a that has Rule 14. The factual situation in Register illustrates and typi- both criticized 6 and defended been asserted to dispose of an as unavoidable. 7 Certainly, it is action in its entirety and to grant fies the kind of case that im- unfortunate and should have complete pleader was devised to handle; relief to all the con- been avoided if possible. cerned parties.' yet, the Georgia venue require- And, ments, as construed by the court, Judge Eberhardt, writing for the While the Georgia appellate barred its use. court of in the case be- have been receptive to In Register the plaintiff, a Mrs. low, believed that it could be the advantages offered by im- Bailey, commenced an action in avoided.'" The approach fol- 0 pleader and counterclaims,1 the Dodge Superior Court seek- lowed by the court of appeals they have rigorously and unduly ing from various de- was to view the impleader action adhered to the constitutional fendants who she alleged were as an ancillary proceeding close- mandate that in civil actions a jointly responsible for a multiple ly connected with and arising defendant is entitled to be sued vehicle collision that injured her out of the dispute in the main in the county of his residence, husband. Although some of the action. Hence, the need to estab- unless the venue for the action resided in counties lish venue independently was is controlled by one of the speci- other than Dodge, venue was obviated. Under the approach fied exceptions contained in the proper against all the co-defen- adopted by the court of appeals, Constitution. dants in the forum for the pur- the venue for the third-party ac- Viewed in the abstract, per- pose of plaintiff's original action tion was simply predicated on haps, this ancient rule of venue because joint tortfeasors may be the venue established in the main is easy to apply and seems to sued in the county of residence action. strike a sensible balance between of any one defendant. 13 How- This, of course, is the approach the interests of plaintiffs and de- ever, after filing suit plaintiff followed in federal practice fendants, although the modern amended her to strike trend is to give the plaintiff a Register as a defendant. Stone, wider choice of places of venue one of the originally named de- by allowing civil actions to be fendants, then sought to implead brought as well where "a sub- Register as a third-party defen- stantial part of the events or dant in the main action by con- omissions giving rise to the claim tending that Register was liable occurred."'" However, in prac- through contribution to Stone for tice the results dictated by venue a pro rata share of any verdict concerns have often been less and returned in favor than sensible. The availability of the plaintiff against Stone. of obtaining venue for the action Register moved to dismiss the C. Ronald Ellington is Associate against the defendant is as im- third-party complaint on the Professor of Law at the portant as securing the requisite ground that as a resident of University of Georgia. He holds personal . And, un- Laurens County, venue could not an A.B. from Emory and an fortunately, the strict application properly be had over him in LL.B. from the University of of Georgia's constitutional venue Dodge County, the forum of the Virginia where he served as rules has seriously undermined principal suit. notes editor for the Virginia the effectiveness of the CPA The supreme court upheld the Law Review. In 1973-74 he was rules allowing impleader and third-party defendant's venue a Fellow in Law and the counterclaims. Given the scarci- objections. Although recogniz- Humanities at Harvard ty of judicial resources and the ing that a joint tortfeasor's right University.

GEORGIA STATE BAR JOURNAL HeinOnline -- 12 Ga. St. B. J. 72 1975-1976 where both subject-matter juris- of an automobile, and Bush, a that a party by filing suit in a diction and venue are treated as guest passenger, were injured in county waives venue as to a ancillary in third-party actions.' 9 a car-train collision in DeKalb separate law suit between dif- To say, as the supreme court did County. Hogan, then a resident ferent parties in that county in Register, that the federal cases of DeKalb County, filed suit even though both actions arise there against the railroad for her from the same events and have are inapposite because the fed- 2 4 eral jurisdictional and venue injuries. At the same time, Bush, been consolidated for trial.. standards are different misses the passenger, also filed suit in Although the railroad still pre- the mark somewhat. Even in fed- DeKalb County against the de- sumably can institute an action eral practice, impleader is not fendant railroad for her injuries. in Gwinnett County against Ho- deemed to expand the court's Since both the Hogan suit and gan to seek contribution for the jurisdiction. Rather, impleader is the Bush suit arose out of the recovery against it in the Bush deemed to warrant the use of the same collision, the cases were suit, it would have been far more court's powers of ancillary juris- ordered consolidated for trial. economical and expeditious to diction, i.e., a judicially devel- Thereafter, the trial court en- have determined the rights of all oped concept based on the prem- tered an order in Bush's law suit the parties in one consolidated ise that a court which has juris- granting leave to the defendant trial before one judge and diction over a case can, as an railroad to file and have served in DeKalb County, the scene of incident of disposing of the case a third-party complaint against the accident. Hogan in which the railroad In Ogden Equipment Co. v. in its entirety, decide other mat- 25 ters raised by the case over sought contribution alleging that Talmadge Farms, Inc., the which it would not have juris- Hogan as the driver of the auto- court of appeals sanctioned one diction or venue if they were in- mobile was jointly liable because ingenious way to circumvent the dependently presented. Thus, be- of her gross negligence in driving Register problem. Here, General cause the defendant's right of into the path of the oncoming Electric Credit Corporation filed action against the third-party train. Hogan moved successfully suit in Fulton County against under Rule 14 must be based on to dismiss the third-party com- Talmadge Farms, Inc., a resident the same aggregate core of facts plaint against her since she had of Henry County. Talmadge that constitutes plaintiff's claim, moved to Gwinnett County be- Farms filed its without the use of ancillary jurisdiction tween the time of filing her com- asserting its venue objections enables the court having juris- plaint in DeKalb County and the and then filed a third-party com- diction over plaintiff's claim to time the railroad's third-party plaint against Ogden Equipment determine the third-party claim complaint was served on her. Co., a resident of Fulton County. springing out of the same core The cases continued to trial, and Ogden moved to dismiss the the jury found for the railroad third-party complaint contending of facts without satisfying addi-20 tional jurisdictional grounds. in the Hogan suit and for the that Talmadge Farms could not Therefore, by reversing the court passenger in the Bush suit. The waive venue so as to prejudice of appeals and requiring that railroad appealed and enumer- the right of third parties in ac- venue be independently estab- ated as one error the dismissal cordance with Ga. Code Ann. § lished, the supreme court in for lack of venue of its third- 24-112."" Register appears to have re- party claim against Hogan. The court held, however, that nounced the judicial power to The court of appeals held, this statute only barred waivers exercise ancillary jurisdiction, in rather woodenly, that since Ho- that prejudiced the legal rights the face of Georgia's constitu- gan was a resident of Gwinnett of third persons and was not tional venue rules. County at the time the third- violated by a party's mere in- Since 1971 when Register was party complaint was served convenience and expense in de- decided, Georgia appellate courts against her, the rule in Register fending an impleader action ex- have carried out both the letter precluded the impleader against pressly allowed by the CPA. Al- and the spirit of its mandate."' her in DeKalb County. The court though General Electric and Tal- Two recent cases further under- might have avoided this result madge Farms had orally agreed score the current venue-related by finding that Hogan had on Fulton County as the forum problems of impleader. In one, waived venue for the purpose of for the original action in order suit by filing her own to allow Talmadge Farm's third- the court of appeals extended the Bush 7 the principle of Register, bypass- complaint against the railroad in party complaint against Ogden, ing an opportunity to ameliorate DeKalb County. Although it is venue was proper as to the origi- its harsh rigors. In the second well established that by filing nal defendant, Talmadge Farms, case, however, the court of ap- suit a party does waive venue as by consent and as to Ogden, the peals sanctioned a sleight-of- to all matters arising out of the third-party defendant, because it hand method of avoiding the pit- action brought by that party was a resident of Fulton County. falls of Register. [such as counterclaims or sepa- Thus, it seems that only if the In Louisville & Nashville R.R. rate actions to enjoin its prosecu- plaintiff is cooperative and will v. Bush,22 one Hogan, the driver tion 23 ), the court refused to hold (Continued on page 105)

VOL. 12 / NO. 2 / OCTOBER 1975

HeinOnline -- 12 Ga. St. B. J. 73 1975-1976 LuxuryI mountain -kyle. For a couple or a coupla' tennis, s' Nimming, cloggin', hundred. Just you and gem hun ting, weavin', your spouse, or you and a ridin' the rapids, hayrides whole association! Enjoy and a miIlion fun things. one of the most exceptional We have a complete resorts in the world, 3700 activitie, program for all feet high in the Blue Ridge ages. Or , just stretch out Mountains, just 45 miles by a mot ntain stream in southwest of the Asheville, the shad e and doze. North Carolina, jetport. Stay in a deluxe villa or Write for full townhouse for 1, 2, 4 or informat:ion, or call 6 or in the new 1896 collect right away. Come, Fairfield Inn on the shores see it for yourself ... for of Lake Fairfield. Meet in a weeker d or a lifetime. the deluxe conference and seminar rooms. Dine on real Carolina cookin'. Join ) in the activities - golf, Sapph ireValley In the cool mountains of Western North Carolina. Mountain Resort Living Star Route 70, Box 80 Sapphire, North Carolina 28774 (7041 743-3441

GEORGIA STATE BAR JOURNAL HeinOnline -- 12 Ga. St. B. J. 74 1975-1976 VENUE (Continued from page 73) of Floyd County. Accordingly, Pemberton and Buford high- file suit by prearrangement in the court held that venue was light the unfortunate restrictions the county of the residence of improper in the Whitfield Su- that venue has placed on the use the party sought to be im- perior Court as to the counter- of counterclaims. Similar venue pleaded, can the economies of claim filed against the additional constraints probably also sur- third-party practice be had in two parties. While the plaintiff, round the use of cross-claims in Georgia courts where the third- by voluntarily instituting the suit Rule 13 although no reported party plaintiff and the third- in Whitfield County, consented case has yet dealt with this is- party defendant are residents of to the jurisdiction of that court sue. Thus, if A sues B and C as different counties. for the purposes of his suit, the joint tortfeasors in the county of plaintiff's action could not waive B's residence, venue is proper Counterclaims and the the venue objections of others; as to the original claim. How- "Next-Door" Plaintiff nor, did instituting the suit in ever, based on Register, Bush, When a plaintiff who resides Whitfield County make the and Pemberton, it would appear in another county files suit in plaintiff a "resident" of that that B could not cross-claim the county of the defendant's county so that the constitutional against C, if C were not a resi- residence, the plaintiff as a gen- venue rule that allows joint tort- dent of the forum, even though eral rule is deemed to waive his feasors to be sued in the county B's claim against C involved the of residence of either would be- same transaction or occurrence venue objections to the forum 32 county so that the defendant can come applicable. as the main claim. assert counterclaims against him Moreover, the supreme court there. 28 A problem can arise, has even found that venue pre- The Remedy: however, when additional par- vented the assertion of a coun- Constitutional Revision ties must be brought in for the terclaim against the plaintiff who The obvious deficiencies in purpose of deciding defendant's originally chose the forum for Georgia practice and procedure counterclaim. In federal courts the litigation. In Buford v. Bu- caused by the constitutional 31 the requirements of subject-mat- ford a wife filed a complaint venue requirements have not ter jurisdiction and venue for against her husband in the Su- gone unnoticed on the court. In such additional parties are han- perior Court of Jones County, Buford, for example, Justice Jor- dled by the concept of ancillary the county of his residence, dan joined by Justice Ingram de- jurisdiction.29 Thus, persons seeking custody of their minor cried the uneconomical expen- brought into an action under child, alimony, and other relief. diture of judicial resources ne- Rule 13(h) as parties to a com- The husband then filed a coun- cessitated by that decision and pulsory (but not a permissive) terclaim in the same action seek- called for amending the consti- counterclaim come within the an- ing divorce and custody of the tutional rules to allow counter- cillary jurisdiction of the court child. The wife moved to strike claims in such cases".3 And, in because the compulsory counter- the counterclaim for divorce for Smith v. Foster,34 a case in which claim involves the same transac- lack of venue since the Georgia the defendant unsuccessfully tion or occurrence as the plain- Constitution, Ga. Code Ann. § sought to use the Rule 19 joinder tiff's original action and is close- 2-4901 (rev. 1973), fixes the ven- of party provisions to overcome ly connected with it. In this way ue of divorce cases in the county the venue barrier to impleader, many related claims can be set- in which the defendant resides, Justice Jordan again warned that tled within the scope of one ac- if the defendant is a Georgia "Georgia's hodge-podge constitu- tion. resident. Because the wife was tional and statutory venue pro- In Georgia, however, venue a resident of Bibb County, the visions have long needed a re- requirements loom large court agreed that the counter- vision in light of modern day as the30 case of Pemberton v. Purifoy claim for divorce could not be requirements."'35 shows. In Pemberton a resident asserted against her in Jones Although a creditable argu- of Floyd County, injured in a County even though she had in- ment could be made that all the multiple automobile collision, stituted an action for alimony problems enumerated above brought an action in the Superior and child custody there. Thus, could be remedied simply by ju- Court of Whitfield County the supreme court ruled that the dicial acceptance of a concept against the defendant, a resident venue requirements of the con- of ancillary jurisdiction, old atti- of Whitfield County. The de- stitution in divorce cases could tudes die hard and nothing short fendant then asserted a counter- not be waived by a party's filing of amending the constitution to claim seeking damages arising suit outside the county of his authorize the General Assembly out of the same collision against residence. Why the constitution- to prescribe new rules of venue the plaintiff and two others, the al rule fixing venue in divorce by statute may suffice. Without driver and the owner of a third cases cannot be waived just like a constitutional change it is automobile, involved in the ac- the rule that a defendant must doubtful that the General As- cident. These last two parties be sued in the county of his resi- sembly acting by statute could were, like the plaintiff, residents dence was not explained. wholly cure the deficiencies al-

VOL. 12 / NO. 2 / OCTOBER 1975

HeinOnline -- 12 Ga. St. B. J. 75 1975-1976 dent Oil Distrib., Inc., 122 Ga. App. though it made at least a step expand the places of venue for 4 ° 335 (1970), rev'd, 227 Ga. 123 (1971). in the right direction during the individual natural persons. 19. See 6 WRIGHT & MILLER, FED- Thus, the only certain method ERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1444 1975 session in expanding the (1971). venue of actions at law against for expanding the places of ven- 20. Id. at § 1444, at 220. corporations. Ga. Code Ann. § ue for actions against individual 21. One clarification of the mean- defendants lies in amending the ing of Register came in Shell v. 22-5301 which provided permis- Watts, 229 Ga. 474 (1972). Assume sible places of venue for contract constitution. A sues B in X County. B then im- and tort actions against corpora- Marshalling public concern and pleads C and D alleging them to be joint tortfeasors. If either C or D is tions in addition to the county support to alter the fundamental a resident of X County, then venue where the registered office was law of the state to cure little- for the third-party action against located was repealed by 1975 Ga. known problems of venue will both is proper in accordance with GA. CODE ANN. § 2-4904 (1972) which al- Laws, p. 583, effective July 1, not be easy. And, as Justice Car- lows joint tortfeasors to be sued in 1975. Basically, the amendment dozo's famous aphorism puts it: the county of residence of either. 22. 131 Ga. App. 405 (1974). restated and consolidated the "Not lightly to be vacated is the 4 1 23. See note 29 infra. existing venue rules for corpora- verdict of quiescent years." 24. Judge Eberhardt, joined by tions under Ga. Code Ann. § 22- Nevertheless, the Bar of Georgia Judges Bell, Hall, and Clark, dis- sented and would allow the impleader 404.3r However, in connection needs to move now to bring since the suits had been consolidated with the rules for tort actions, a about a general revision of our for trial. 131 Ga. App. at 410. venue rules.4 2 25. 132 Ga. App. 834, aff'd on change was made. New section other grounds, 232 Ga. 614 (1974). 22-404(d) now provides that a FOOTNOTES 26. GA. CODE ANN. § 24-112 (1971) corporation, in addition to the 1. GA. CONST. art. XXXVIII provides that (1777). Parties, by consent express or im- county of its registered office, 2. GA. CONST. art. III, § 1 (1798). plied, may not give jurisdiction to "shall be deemed to reside and 3. GA. CONST. art. IV, § 2 5 the court as to the person or sub- damages be- (1861). ject-matter of the suit. It may, may be sued for 4. GA. CONST. art. V, § 12, 1-7 however, be waived, insofar as the cause of torts, wrong or injury (1868). rights of the parties are concerned, done, in the county where the 5. The constitutional rules gov- but not so as to prejudice third erning venue are presently set out in parties. originated, if the GA. CONST. art. VI, § XIV, I - VI 27. 132 Ga. App. at 836. corporation transacts business in (1945), GA. CODE ANN. § 2-4901-06 28. See Bragg v. Gavin, 234 Ga. that county.' 37 The former rule (1973). 70 (1975). 6. Railroad Comm'n v. Palmer 29. See 6 WRIGHT & MILLER, FED- in § 22-5301 did not contain this Hardware Co., 124 Ga. 633, 649 ERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1436 "transacts business" proviso but (1906). (1971). rather required that the corpora- 7. See Hall, Civil Procedure 30. 128 Ga. App. 892 (1973). For What's It All About?, 21 MERCER L. a general discussion of the impact of tion have an agent, agency or REV. 377 (1970). venue on counterclaims, see Beaird & place of business there before it 8. GA. CODE ANN. § 81A - 101 Ellington, Annual Survey of Geor- (Rev. 1972). gia Law: Trial Practice and Pro- could be served in the county 9. See 6 WRIGHT & MILLER, FED- cedure, 26 MERCER L. REv. 239, 245- where the cause of action arose. ERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE §§ 1403, 46 (1974). 1434 (1971). 31. 231 Ga. 9 (1973). Although the measure of this The Koppers Co. v. 10. See, e.g., 32. In federal practice such cross- change is unclear and must await Ga. App. 551 (1969) Parks, 120 claims come within the ancillary jur- future case-by-case development (impleader); Buffington v. McClel- isdiction of the court and need not to determine the level of activ- land, 125 Ga. App. 153 (1971) (coun- present independent grounds of juris- terclaim). diction and venue. See 6 WRIGHT & ities necessary to satisfy the 11. See American Law Institute, MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PRO- "transacts business" test, the im- Study of the Division of Jurisdiction CEDURE § 1433 (1971). However, an- Between State and Federal Courts § port of the change is presumably cillary jurisdiction is apparently not 1303(a) (proposed) (1969). See gen- available for this purpose in Georgia. to expand the availability of erally Stevens, Venue Statutes: Diag- For an early, optimistic assessment of 49 Mich. L. venue in tort actions against cor- nosis and Proposed Cure, the prospects for using counterclaims Rev. 307 (1951). and cross-claims under the Civil Prac- porations. Thus, it should be pos- 12. 227 Ga. 123 (1971). tice Act, see Norman, The Georgia sible to show, for example, that 13. GA. CODE ANN. § 2-4904 Civil Practice Act: Counterclaims, a corporation was "transacting (1972). Cross-Claims and Third-Party Prac- 14. 227 Ga. at 126. tice, 4 GA. ST. B.J. 205, 215-16 (1967). business" by operating a delivery 15. 227 Ga. at 125: "This title 33. Buford v. Buford, 231 Ga. 9, truck in the county where the shall not be construed to extend or 12 (1973) (concurring). limit the jurisdiction of the courts accident occurred even though or the venue of actions therein." See 34. 230 Ga. 207 (1973). it did not have an agent, agency GA. CODE ANN. § 81A-182. 35. 230 Ga. at 211 (dissenting). 16. See Beaird & Ellington, An- 36. GA. CODE ANN. § 22-404(b) or place of business in the coun- nual Survey of Georgia Law: Trial remains unchanged in providing that ty at the time process was at- 25 MERCER L. for venue purposes a corporation is 38 Practice and Procedure, tempted to be served. REv.. 265, 275-79 (1973); Comment, deemed to be a resident of the county Georgia Civil Procedure-Impleading where its registered office is fixed by It has generally been trought of a Third-Party Defendant is an In- its corporat- charter. New section 22- that while the General Assembly dependent "Suit" that Must Satisfy 404(c) was added and it now speci- could fix alternative places of the Venue Requirements of the Geor- fied that a corporation shall also "be gia Constitution, 8 GA. ST. B.J. 428 deemed to reside and may be sued on venue for actions against corpo- (1972). contracts in that county in which the rations,3 9 as the legislature did 17. See SHULMAN & SHULMAN, contract sought to be enforced was GEORGIA PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 5-10 made or is to be performed, if it has in enacting Ga. Code Ann. 22- (4th ed. 1975). an office and transacts business in 404, it could not constitutionally 18. Register v. Stone's Indepen- that county." 1975 Ga. Laws, p. 583,

GEORGIA STATE BAR JOURNAL

HeinOnline -- 12 Ga. St. B. J. 76 1975-1976 588 (emphasis added). This provision CALENDARS is identical to the one contained in former GA. CODE ANN. § 22-5301. STATE BAR MEETINGS 37. GA. CODE ANN. § 22-404(d), added by [1975] Ga. Laws 583, 588. 1975 38. Compare Drake v. Chesser, 230 Ga. 148, 153-54 (1973), with Hunton November 21 - Board of Governors, Lake Lanier Islands v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 134 Ga. 801, 804-06 (1975). December 3-5 - Midyear Meeting, Atlanta 39. See Martin & Thompson, Inc. v. Allen, 188 Ga. 42, 45 (1939). EDUCATION 40. See Youmans v. Hickman, 179 INSTITUTE OF CONTINUING LEGAL Ga. 684, 687-88 (1934). 41. Coler v. Corn Exchange Bank, PROGRAMS 250 N.Y. 136, 164 N.E. 882 (1928). 1975 42. The impediments caused by rules of venue to the effective use the - Civil Evidence with Emphasis on the New Federal of impleader and counterclaims rep- October 16-17 resent only a few of the venue-related Rules, Lake Lanier Islands problems for Georgia practice and for Juvenile Court Judges, Athens procedure. Statutes governing the October 28-30 - 14th Workshop venue of specific actions are scattered October 29-31- 15th Seminar for District Attorneys, Athens throughout the Code. See Note, Venue In Georgia: Problems and Proposals, October 29-31 - 13th Seminar for Georgia Trial Judges, Athens B.J. 254 (1972). Issues still 9 GA. ST. November 6-7 - Creditors' Rights & Bankruptcy, Savannah arise over what constitutes a "case respecting title to land" for the pur- November 13-14 - Creditors' Rights & Bankruptcy, Unicoi poses of GA. CODE ANN. § 2-4902. See Hawkins v. Pierotti, 232 Ga. 631 December 11-12 - Creditors' Rights & Bankruptcy, Atlanta (1974). And, even the 1975 legisla- tive change in GA. CODE ANN. § 22- 1976 404(d) did not go far enough and remove the distinction pointed out in January 8-10 - 12th Bridge-the-Gap, Atlanta Etowah Milling Co. v. Crenshaw, 116 January 23 - Real Estate IV, Augusta Ga. 406 (1904), between alternative places of venue allowable in actions January 30 - Real Estate IV, Callaway Gardens against corporations seeking money damages at law and those actions February 6- Real Estate IV, Atlanta seeking equitable relief. Hence, a February 27-28 - 21st Estate Planning Institute for Atorneys, careful, thorough revision of the ven- Athens ue rules in Georgia is needed. Trust Officers, Life Underwriters & Accountants,

THE BICENTENNIAL YEAR The Editorial Board will be meeting soon to plan for participation next year in the bicentennial celebration. We would like to have the benefit of your suggestions as to topics which you consider ap- propriate for inclusion in the Journal. If you recommend a topic, please let us know if you are willing to write the article yourself or can suggest someone else as the author. Write Editor, Georgia State Bar Journal, Fulton National Bank Bldg., Atlanta, GA 30303.

VOL. 12 / NO. 2 / OCTOBER 1975 107

HeinOnline -- 12 Ga. St. B. J. 77 1975-1976