District Grand Lodge Number 18 v. Hall

Court of Appeals of Georgia

District Grand Lodge Number 18 v. Hall

87 S.E. 845, 17 Ga. App. 589, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 804

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 4, 1916

Docket6585

StatusPublished

This text of 87 S.E. 845 (District Grand Lodge Number 18 v. Hall) 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

District Grand Lodge Number 18 v. Hall, 87 S.E. 845, 17 Ga. App. 589, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 804 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. Conceding, for the purposes of this decision, that the defendant is an insurance company, it is unnecessary to consider any of the various assignments of error, except the particular assignment based on the judgment of the court in overruling the motion for a new [590]*590trial on the issue raised by the plea to the jurisdiction. The evidence entirely fails to support an inference that the defendant had a place of doing business in Bibb county, or that its “District Grand Master,” who resided in that county, and upon whom service was effected, was in fact an agent, service upon whom would bind the defendant.

Decided February 4, 1916.

Complaint; from municipal court of Macon — Judge Chambers. April 21, 1915.

C. P. Goree, for plaintiff in error. Charles H. Garrett, Wallace Miller, contra.

2. Since the evidence showed that the court was without jurisdiction, the further proceedings in the trial, including the final judgment, were nugatory and void, and the court erred in overruling the motion upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction. Judgment reversed.

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

Wade, J.

1. Conceding, for the purposes of this decision, that the defendant is an insurance company, it is unnecessary to consider any of the various assignments of error, except the particular assignment based on the judgment of the court in overruling the motion for a new [590]*590trial on the issue raised by the plea to the jurisdiction. The evidence entirely fails to support an inference that the defendant had a place of doing business in Bibb county, or that its “District Grand Master,” who resided in that county, and upon whom service was effected, was in fact an agent, service upon whom would bind the defendant.

Decided February 4, 1916.

Complaint; from municipal court of Macon — Judge Chambers. April 21, 1915.

C. P. Goree, for plaintiff in error. Charles H. Garrett, Wallace Miller, contra.

2. Since the evidence showed that the court was without jurisdiction, the further proceedings in the trial, including the final judgment, were nugatory and void, and the court erred in overruling the motion upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 845, 17 Ga. App. 589, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/district-grand-lodge-number-18-v-hall-gactapp-1916.