Cox v. Continental Guaranty Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cox v. Continental Guaranty Corp.

114 S.E. 914, 29 Ga. App. 255, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 213

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1922

Docket13569

StatusPublished

This text of 114 S.E. 914 (Cox v. Continental Guaranty Corp.) 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

Cox v. Continental Guaranty Corp., 114 S.E. 914, 29 Ga. App. 255, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 213 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Where a motion to set aside a judgment is made upon the ground that a former deputy sheriff’s return showing perfect service is absolutely untrue, the only legal way to question and correct the return is by traversing it at the first term after notice of the entry, and making the sheriff, as well as the former deputy, a party thereto. These legal requirements cannot be avoided by a written motion to amend the entry of service, stating that the return was false, and that the former deputy sheriff is in court insisting that his entry be amended. It not appearing from the face of the record that there was any attempt to make the sheriff a party to the traverse, or that he had any notice of its being filed, it follows that the presiding judge did not err in disallowing the proffered amendments negativing service, and in dismissing the motion to set aside the judgment. Bell v. New Orleans & Northeastern R. Co., 2 Ga. App. 812 (1-b) (59 S. E. 102); Rawlings v. Brown, 15 Ga. App. 162 (3) (82 S. E. 803); Southern States Phosphate &c. Co. v. Clark, 19 Ga. App. 376 (91 S. E. 573).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodicorth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Where a motion to set aside a judgment is made upon the ground that a former deputy sheriff’s return showing perfect service is absolutely untrue, the only legal way to question and correct the return is by traversing it at the first term after notice of the entry, and making the sheriff, as well as the former deputy, a party thereto. These legal requirements cannot be avoided by a written motion to amend the entry of service, stating that the return was false, and that the former deputy sheriff is in court insisting that his entry be amended. It not appearing from the face of the record that there was any attempt to make the sheriff a party to the traverse, or that he had any notice of its being filed, it follows that the presiding judge did not err in disallowing the proffered amendments negativing service, and in dismissing the motion to set aside the judgment. Bell v. New Orleans & Northeastern R. Co., 2 Ga. App. 812 (1-b) (59 S. E. 102); Rawlings v. Brown, 15 Ga. App. 162 (3) (82 S. E. 803); Southern States Phosphate &c. Co. v. Clark, 19 Ga. App. 376 (91 S. E. 573).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodicorth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 914, 29 Ga. App. 255, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-continental-guaranty-corp-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack