in Scott. We choose the latter view, and hold that service upon Beech in this case was proper and in personam jurisdiction was obtained under § 24-113.1 (b). As stated above, the Court has no doubt that § 24-113.1 (c) applies to Beech if it is held to apply retroactively. We further conclude that it should be applied retroactively, as set out below, and that service thereunder was proper. In Hare v. United Airlines Corp., 295 F.Supp. 860 (N.D.Ga.1968), this Court considered the question of whether the 1968 amendment to § 24-117 (Ga.Laws, 1968, p. 1419), which specifically included corporations in the meaning of the term “non-resident”, should be held retroactive. We considered Ga.Code Ann. § 102-104, as well as Focht v. American Casualty Co., 103 Ga.App. 138, 118 S.E.2d 737 (1961) (<HOLDING>), and Pritchard v. Savannah St. & R. R. R. Co.,
holding no retroactive application holding that the act is not retroactive holding that the act is retroactive recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary holding that there is no rational reason for the retroactive application of 80173 and the prospective application of 833