Turner v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines Inc.

Gardner, J. The contract between Southeastern Greyhound Lines Inc., a foreign corporation leasing the terminal station and equipment to Mrs. Andrews, may be binding as to them. The Code, § 22-1101, provides: “Service of all writs, attachments, and other process necessary to the commencement of any suit against any corporation in any court, except as hereinafter provided, may be perfected by serving any officer or agent of such corporation, or by leaving the same at the place of transacting the usual and ordi *553 nary public business of such corporation, if any such place of business then shall be within the jurisdiction of the court in which said suit may be commenced. The officer shall specify the mode of service in his return.” It will be noted that under the contract, particularly paragraph 8, Mrs. Andrews was to “keep in a separate trust fund the proceeds of all tickets and transportation sale for or on behalf of Southeastern Greyhound Lines Inc., and to remit said proceeds to Greyhound as the agent for the said carrier at such times and in such manner as Greyhound may from time to time request.” Again, in paragraph 7, “operator shall have no power to bind Greyhound by contract or otherwise except as to the sale of transportation for persons and/or property.” And in paragraph 10, “and said company shall not be liable for any of the acts, doings, or representations of operator in relation to the sale of trans-. portation by operator over the lines or services of other carriers whose tickets may be sold by operator at said terminal.” The exclusion of liability as to other transportation over other lines or services of other carriers is an implication that Southeastern Greyhound Lines Inc. is bound by the doings and representations of Mrs. Andrews in relation to transportation sale over its own lines. These provisions, to our way of thinking, clearly make her the agent of the company under the provisions of said Code section. And service on her as such agent was service on Southeastern Greyhound Lines Inc. See, in this connection, Central of Ga. Power Co. v. Nolen, 143 Ga. 779 (3) (85 S. E. 945); Southern Bell Tel. &c. Co. v. Parker, 119 Ga. 721 (47 S. E. 194); Bell v. New Orleans &c. R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 812 (59 S. E. 102). The court erred in directing the verdict in favor of the traverse. The evidence de-’ manded a finding against the traverse. Judgment reversed. Broyles, C. J.', Felton and Parker, JJ., concur. Button, P. J., concurs in the judgment. MacIntyre, J., dissents.