Citizens National Bank v. Swift Fertilizer Works

86 S.E. 403, 16 Ga. App. 533, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 110
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 29, 1915
Docket6146
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 86 S.E. 403 (Citizens National Bank v. Swift Fertilizer Works) 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
Citizens National Bank v. Swift Fertilizer Works, 86 S.E. 403, 16 Ga. App. 533, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 110 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinions

Broyles, J.

1. In cases where the court has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, of the subject-matter, or where there is no legal subject-matter, jurisdiction can not be waived, but in all other instances appearance and pleading, without a reservation by the pleader of his right to object later, are a waiver of all irregularities in the process, or of the absence of process, or of void process, and of the service thereof. See Civil Code, § 5559; Pool v. Perdue, 44 Ga. 454; Carter v. Smith, 5 Ga. App. 804 (63 S. E. 932); Connor v. Hodges, 7 Ga. App. 153 (2) (66 S. E. 546); Saffold v. Foster, 74 Ga. 751 (2); Flournoy v. Rutledge, 73 Ga. 735 (2); Moulton v. Baer, 78 Ga. 215 (2 S. E. 471); Savannah &c. Ry. Co. v. Atkinson, 94 Ga. 780 (21 S. E. 1010); Johnson v. Shurley, 58 Ga. 417; Mitchell v. Long, 74 Ga. 94, 98; Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens, 115 Ga. 959, 961 (42 S. E. 266); John Holland Co. v. Williams, 7 Ga. App. 173, 175 (66 S. E. 540); Gay v. Cheney, 58 Ga. 304, 305; Brooke v. Augusta Warehouse &c. Co., 119 Ga. 946 (47 S. E. 341); Cincinnati R. Co. v. Pless, 3 Ga. App. 400, 403 (60 S. E. 8); Carr v. Roney, 118 Ga. 634 (45 S. E. 464).

[534]*534Decided July 29, 1915. Rehearing denied October 2, 1915. Garnishment; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Eeid. October 14, 1914. Mundy & Mundy, Hewlett, Dennis & Whitman, for plaintiff. Tye, Peeples & Jordan, contra.

2. It being clearly apparent that the city court of Atlanta had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this case, and also of the garnishee, and that the garnishee, by its appearance in court and its pleading to the merits, waived all anterior defects and irregularities in .the case, including any irregularity or invalidity in the summons of garnishment served upon it, the court erred in sustaining the motion of the garnishee and striking the garnishment case from the docket. . Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Nichols v. Acree
145 S.E.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Cherry v. McCutchen
23 S.E.2d 687 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Mullis v. McCook
194 S.E. 171 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Donaldson v. Tripod Paint Co.
158 S.E. 640 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Gammage v. Perry
116 S.E. 126 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 S.E. 403, 16 Ga. App. 533, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-national-bank-v-swift-fertilizer-works-gactapp-1915.