Flint v. Gust
180 Ga.App. 904 (1986).
Author: Jim

Facts:  P responded to an ad in D’s magazine to purchase a truck and a trailer from D.  P was a resident of Georgia and D was a Wisconsin corporation.  P claims that D tried to sell a different vehicle to him also refused to return his deposit.  P brought an action for conversion, fraud, and breach of K.  Although D was a national magazine, it did not conduct regular business in Georgia.

Procedure:  Trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over D.

Issue:  Does Georgia’s long arm statute allow jurisdiction over D?

Holding: Yes, but only for conversion and fraud.

Rationale:  The court based its judgment solely on the statutory interpretation of Georgia’s long arm statute.  The court ruled that for contract cases, the Georgia statute required purposeful activity within the state and for tort cases, the statute required the tortious act to be committed within the state.  There was no jurisdiction over the contract claim because D did not purposefully acted within Georgia and it was merely involved in national circulation of its magazine.  But there was jurisdiction over tort claims because the injury of D’s actions was felt in Georgia and hence, the tort took place in Georgia