Tabor v. Mason Dixon Lines, Inc.
196 Tenn. 198, 1953 Tenn. LEXIS 410, 264 S.W.2d 821 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Tennessee's nonresident motorist statute, the one-year period for which the Secretary of State is appointed as an agent for service of process is a strict limitation on the duration of that agency. Service on the Secretary of State must be completed within one year of the accident to be valid, and this period is not tolled by the mere filing of a lawsuit.
Facts:
- Scottie Powers was a nonresident of Tennessee.
- On November 18, 1951, Powers was operating a vehicle on Tennessee roads.
- An automobile accident involving Powers and the plaintiff occurred in Tennessee on that date.
- The accident caused personal injuries and property damage to the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Scottie Powers in a Tennessee trial court on November 13, 1952.
- Process was served on the Tennessee Secretary of State on November 25, 1952, as a means of serving the nonresident defendant.
- The defendant, Powers, filed pleas in abatement, arguing that the Secretary of State's authority to accept service had expired on November 18, 1952, one year after the accident.
- The trial court sustained the defendant's pleas in abatement, finding the service of process invalid.
- The plaintiff, as plaintiff in error, perfected an appeal to this Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the one-year time limit in Tennessee's nonresident motorist statute (Code Section 8671) define the duration of the Secretary of State's agency to accept service, requiring service to be completed within that year, or is it a statute of limitations that is tolled by filing a lawsuit before the year expires?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Burnett
No. The one-year time limit defines the duration of the agency itself, and service is invalid if made after that period expires. The court reasoned that the statute's plain language makes it an 'appointing statute,' not a statute of limitations. It unambiguously creates an agency relationship that 'shall continue for a period of one year from the date of any accident.' Because the statute is in derogation of common law rights (altering the normal rules of service), it must be strictly construed. Therefore, it cannot be read 'in pari materia' with general statutes of limitation that allow for tolling. Citing fundamental principles of agency law, the court concluded that once the specified one-year term expired, the Secretary of State's authority to act as the defendant's agent was automatically terminated.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that statutory provisions for substitute service on nonresidents must be strictly construed. It establishes that the time limit for such service can be jurisdictional, defining the very existence of the agent's authority, rather than a procedural deadline like a statute of limitations. This forces plaintiffs to not only file their complaint within the statutory period but also to complete the act of service on the designated agent within that same, unforgiving timeframe. The ruling emphasizes a formalistic, plain-language approach to statutory interpretation, particularly for laws that create unconventional methods for establishing personal jurisdiction.
