Gunby, Daniel & Co. v. Welcher & Carter

20 Ga. 336
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1856·No. No. 56·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

Settle one point in this case and it is decided. Are the acts of a Coroner, defacto, one who has been elected and performed the duties of the office, but who has failed to qualify in terms of the law, valid ? So far as the public are concerned, such have been the uniform adjudications of all Courts.

The showing made by the defendants for a continuance, discloses the fact that Isaac Gr. Livingston had been elected and qualified to serve as Coroner of Marion County for previous years; that he had been elected for the year when this writ was served, hut had failed to qualify. The Clerk directed the process to him as Coroner ; he executed the writ ■ as such. If, then, he was Coroner de facto, the process was good and the service was good, whether he was Coroner [338] jure or not. It may be, that under the law authorizing the. -old Coroner to act until his successor was qualified, he was. Coroner de jure. But whether this he or not, the showing, was insufficient to continue the case.

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

Gunby, Daniel & Co. v. Welcher & Carter, 20 Ga. 336 (Ga. 1856).

20 Ga. 336 (Gunby, Daniel & Co. v. Welcher & Carter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States Motor Co. v. Baughman Automobile Co.
86 S.E. 464 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)