Ferguson v. New Manchester Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Ferguson v. New Manchester Manufacturing Co.

51 Ga. 609

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 51 Ga. 609 (Ferguson v. New Manchester Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ferguson v. New Manchester Manufacturing Co., 51 Ga. 609 (Ga. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Warner, Chief Justice.

The only question in this case is whether the court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s action, on the statement of facts disclosed by the record. It appears therefrom that the plaintiff filed his declaration in the clerk’s office against the defendant, but which was not served so as to give the superior court jurisdiction as provided by law, and the case was dismissed for ivant of jurisdiction. Within six months thereafter the plaintiff renewed his suit, which second suit was dismissed by the court, and the plaintiff excepted. This case comes within the principle decided by this court in Gray, executor, vs. Hodges, 50 Georgia, 262, and must control it. The filing the declaration in the clerk’s office, when service has been perfected as provided by law, will be considered as the commencement of the suit, but the mere filing of the declaration, without more, is not the commencement of a suit without service on a defendant, as provided by law, of whom the court has jurisdiction.

Let the judgment of ‘the Court below be affirmed.

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

Warner, Chief Justice.

The only question in this case is whether the court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s action, on the statement of facts disclosed by the record. It appears therefrom that the plaintiff filed his declaration in the clerk’s office against the defendant, but which was not served so as to give the superior court jurisdiction as provided by law, and the case was dismissed for ivant of jurisdiction. Within six months thereafter the plaintiff renewed his suit, which second suit was dismissed by the court, and the plaintiff excepted. This case comes within the principle decided by this court in Gray, executor, vs. Hodges, 50 Georgia, 262, and must control it. The filing the declaration in the clerk’s office, when service has been perfected as provided by law, will be considered as the commencement of the suit, but the mere filing of the declaration, without more, is not the commencement of a suit without service on a defendant, as provided by law, of whom the court has jurisdiction.

Let the judgment of ‘the Court below be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 Ga. 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-new-manchester-manufacturing-co-ga-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack