Blumberg v. Banks & Son

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blumberg v. Banks & Son

141 S.E. 816, 37 Ga. App. 727, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 582

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 18, 1928

Docket18156

StatusPublished

This text of 141 S.E. 816 (Blumberg v. Banks & Son) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blumberg v. Banks & Son, 141 S.E. 816, 37 Ga. App. 727, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Upon the trial of a traverse to an officer’s return of service, an issue of fact is presented where the defendant testifies unequivocally that service was never perfected upon him, and the officer himself testifies that he is positive that the defendant is the person that he served. The officer’s testimony is sufficient to authorize the inference that such person was served by him, although the officer previously testified upon the same hearing and before refreshing his memory by going to the defendant’s place of business and there observing the 'defendant, that he could not swear that he had perfected service upon the defendant. It is a question of fact as to the truth of the officer’s testimony.

2. The judgment finding against the traverse to the officer’s return was authorized by the evidence, and the judge of .the superior court did not err in dismissing the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., amd Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Upon the trial of a traverse to an officer’s return of service, an issue of fact is presented where the defendant testifies unequivocally that service was never perfected upon him, and the officer himself testifies that he is positive that the defendant is the person that he served. The officer’s testimony is sufficient to authorize the inference that such person was served by him, although the officer previously testified upon the same hearing and before refreshing his memory by going to the defendant’s place of business and there observing the 'defendant, that he could not swear that he had perfected service upon the defendant. It is a question of fact as to the truth of the officer’s testimony.

2. The judgment finding against the traverse to the officer’s return was authorized by the evidence, and the judge of .the superior court did not err in dismissing the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., amd Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E. 816, 37 Ga. App. 727, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumberg-v-banks-son-gactapp-1928.