Baldwin, Starr & Co. v. McMichael

68 Ga. 828
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 15, 1882·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Where the name of the defendant was stated in the declaration, and the process attached was directed to the sheriff or his deputy, and required that the defendant be and appear at the return term of the court, the fact that in the formal statement of the case at the head of the process the name of the defendant was erroneously stated, did not render the process and judgment founded thereon void. Such defect was amendable. Hence, in a claim case, it was error to exclude the fi. fa. on account of such defect in the process. Code, §§3345, 3334, 206, par. 6; 29 Ga., 339; 50 Ib., 96; 60 Ib., 116.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Baldwin, Starr & Co. v. McMichael, 68 Ga. 828 (Ga. 1882).

68 Ga. 828 (Baldwin, Starr & Co. v. McMichael) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Massey
132 S.E. 270 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Greenwood Theatrical Agency v. Alkahest Lyceum System
92 S.E. 301 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens
42 S.E. 266 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)