Flemister Grocery Co. v. Wright Mercantile & Lumber Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Flemister Grocery Co. v. Wright Mercantile & Lumber Co.

73 S.E. 1077, 10 Ga. App. 702, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 655

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 6, 1912

Docket3782

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 1077 (Flemister Grocery Co. v. Wright Mercantile & Lumber 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

Flemister Grocery Co. v. Wright Mercantile & Lumber Co., 73 S.E. 1077, 10 Ga. App. 702, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. A mere casual or temporary absence of a debtor from the

State on business or pleasure will not render him a non-resident, within tlie meaning' of the statute relating to attachments. Stickney v. Chapman, 115 Ga., 761 (42 S. E. 68).

2. Where an attachment was issued on the ground of non-residence, and this ground was traversed by the defendant, it was not erroneous to allow him to testify that he was only temporarily absent from the State on business, and that lie intended to come back to Georgia to live. The fact of actual residence is to be determined by the ordinary and obvious indicia of residence; and where one leaves the State of his residence, his declaration that he intended his absence to be only1 temporary, and that he intended to return to the State of his residence, is explanatory of his conduct and is competent.

3. No error of law appeals, and the facts disclosed by the record fully support the verdict in favor of the traverse of the ground of non-residence. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. A mere casual or temporary absence of a debtor from the

State on business or pleasure will not render him a non-resident, within tlie meaning' of the statute relating to attachments. Stickney v. Chapman, 115 Ga., 761 (42 S. E. 68).

2. Where an attachment was issued on the ground of non-residence, and this ground was traversed by the defendant, it was not erroneous to allow him to testify that he was only temporarily absent from the State on business, and that lie intended to come back to Georgia to live. The fact of actual residence is to be determined by the ordinary and obvious indicia of residence; and where one leaves the State of his residence, his declaration that he intended his absence to be only1 temporary, and that he intended to return to the State of his residence, is explanatory of his conduct and is competent.

3. No error of law appeals, and the facts disclosed by the record fully support the verdict in favor of the traverse of the ground of non-residence. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 1077, 10 Ga. App. 702, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flemister-grocery-co-v-wright-mercantile-lumber-co-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

1. A mere casual or temporary absence of a debtor from the

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack