Gunby, Daniel & Co. v. Welcher & Carter

20 Ga. 336
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 15, 1856
DocketNo. 56
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

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]*338jure 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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Ga. 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gunby-daniel-co-v-welcher-carter-ga-1856.