Arthur H. DuGrenier, Inc. v. Stone
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
[256] Appellee, Coe Stone, filed tliis bill against the appellant, Arthur IT. DuG-renier, 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. Boyles, 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 thé cost of appellant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
415 S.W.2d 883 (Arthur H. DuGrenier, Inc. v. Stone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.