Deich v. American Discount Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Deich v. American Discount Co.

129 S.E.2d 179, 107 Ga. App. 22, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 555

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 16, 1962

Docket39779

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 S.E.2d 179 (Deich v. American Discount Co.) 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

Deich v. American Discount Co., 129 S.E.2d 179, 107 Ga. App. 22, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 555 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

A traverse of an entry of service must allege that it is filed at the first term alter notice to the defendant (Code § 81-214), and must deny the truth of the entry of service. Parker v. Rosenheim, 97 Ga. 769, 771 (25 SE 763); Sanford v. Bates, 99 Ga. 145 (1) (25 SE 35); City of Albany v. Parks, 61 Ga. App. 55 (2) (5 SE2d 680); Caye & Co. v. Davidson, 94 Ga. App. 574 (1) (95 SE2d 746). While an amendment of a proper traverse may be made to make the sheriff a party (see Stone v. Richardson, 76 Ga. 97) "in order for a timely traverse, however made, to stand as such and furnish the basis of such an amendment ... it must plainly and unequivocally deny the truth of the return as shown by the entry of service.” Webb v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 21 Ga. App. 409, 410 (94 SE 610). Therefore, a traverse properly filed at the first term after notice but which fails specifically to deny the truth of the entry of service is not amendable at a subsequent term to so deny the truth of the entry.

Judgment affirmed.

Carlisle, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

A traverse of an entry of service must allege that it is filed at the first term alter notice to the defendant (Code § 81-214), and must deny the truth of the entry of service. Parker v. Rosenheim, 97 Ga. 769, 771 (25 SE 763); Sanford v. Bates, 99 Ga. 145 (1) (25 SE 35); City of Albany v. Parks, 61 Ga. App. 55 (2) (5 SE2d 680); Caye & Co. v. Davidson, 94 Ga. App. 574 (1) (95 SE2d 746). While an amendment of a proper traverse may be made to make the sheriff a party (see Stone v. Richardson, 76 Ga. 97) "in order for a timely traverse, however made, to stand as such and furnish the basis of such an amendment ... it must plainly and unequivocally deny the truth of the return as shown by the entry of service.” Webb v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 21 Ga. App. 409, 410 (94 SE 610). Therefore, a traverse properly filed at the first term after notice but which fails specifically to deny the truth of the entry of service is not amendable at a subsequent term to so deny the truth of the entry.

Judgment affirmed.

Carlisle, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E.2d 179, 107 Ga. App. 22, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deich-v-american-discount-co-gactapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack