Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Glass v. Byrom

Glass v. Byrom

245 S.E.2d 345, 146 Ga. App. 1, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2276
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 12, 1978
Docket55630
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 245 S.E.2d 345 (Glass v. Byrom) 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
Glass v. Byrom, 245 S.E.2d 345, 146 Ga. App. 1, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2276 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

This is a personal injury suit. Defendant answered, asserting that plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of service of process. The return of service stated that a copy of the complaint and summons were served upon defendant at stated addresses on two separate dates by leaving the process with two named individuals. Defendant testified that neither of these addresses constituted his dwelling house or usual place of abode at the time of service. One address was his business address and the other was the residence of his estranged wife. Plaintiffs produced no evidence on this matter. The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process. Held:

The evidence demands that the service of process here was not in conformity with CPA § 4 (d) (7) (Code Ann. § 81A-104 (d) (7)) which requires that the defendant be served personally or be served by leaving copies of the summons and complaint at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with a competent resident. As this statute’s explicit rules were not followed precisely, the court *2 properly dismissed the complaint. Thompson v. Lagerquist, 232 Ga. 75 (205 SE2d 267). This service of process was insufficient notwithstanding the fact that defendant had acquired knowledge of the pending lawsuit. Morgan v. Pacific Fin. Co., 142 Ga. App. 342 (236 SE2d 28). Defendant’s appearance in the action by the filing of an answer and raising the defense of insufficiency of service of process and answering interrogatories did not constitute a waiver of the defective service. CPA § 12 (h) (1) (Code Ann. § 81A-112 (h) (1)). Weems v. Weems, 225 Ga. 154 (166 SE2d 352).

Argued April 10, 1978 Decided May 12, 1978. Ross & Finch, A. Russell Blank, Thomas C. Blaska, for appellants. Murray & Temple, William A. Dinges, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

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

Related

William Crispin v. State of Georgia
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2021
Thornton v. Lee
606 S.E.2d 32 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
Exum v. Melton
536 S.E.2d 786 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Sparrow v. Che
501 S.E.2d 553 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Stamps v. Bank South, N.A.
471 S.E.2d 323 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Garrett v. Godby
375 S.E.2d 103 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Roberts v. Bienert
360 S.E.2d 25 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Daniel v. Leibolt
342 S.E.2d 334 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Todd v. Harnischfeger Corp.
340 S.E.2d 22 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Georgia Power Co. v. O'Bryant
313 S.E.2d 709 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Brumit v. Mull
302 S.E.2d 408 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Headrick v. Fordham
268 S.E.2d 753 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Cook v. Bright
258 S.E.2d 326 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 S.E.2d 345, 146 Ga. App. 1, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-byrom-gactapp-1978.