Hall v. Roehr & Co.

73 S.E. 550, 10 Ga. App. 379, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 520
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 15, 1912
Docket3590
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 550 (Hall v. Roehr & 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
Hall v. Roehr & Co., 73 S.E. 550, 10 Ga. App. 379, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. Under the mandatory provisions of the constitution of this State — article 6, section 16 (Civil Code of 1910, § 6543) — the venue of all civil eases is in the county where the defendant resides,'except in certain cases specified in paragraphs 1 to 5 (inclusive) of the said article. A trover suit is a civil ease, and is not among the exceptions to the general rule. Where, therefore, a timely and sufficient plea to the jurisdiction of the court was filed, on the ground that the defendant was not a resident of the county in which the suit was [380]*380brought, it was error for the trial judge to strike this plea, and the issue therein made should have been submitted to the jury.

Decided January 15, 1912. Trover; from city court of Bainbridge — W. V. Cugter, judge pro hac vice. June 22, 1911. E. 8. Longley, for plaintiff in error. J. G. Hale, W. H. Krause, contra.

2. The giving of a bond for the forthcoming of the property in a trover suit, where bail is required, is in a sense an appearance by the defendant, yet it is not such appearance and pleading to the merits of the case as would constitute a waiver of jurisdiction. To complete such waiver there must not only be a general appearance, but also pleading to the merits. Civil Code (1910), § 5664.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Scarborough v. Scarborough
189 S.E.2d 864 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Trailmobile, Inc. v. Combs
125 S.E.2d 574 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Farmer v. Whitehead
98 S.E.2d 145 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Flemming v. Drake
137 S.E. 268 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Clark Milling Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
127 S.E. 783 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Morse v. Turner
92 S.E. 767 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Garvin v. Mayor of Waynesboro
84 S.E. 90 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 S.E. 550, 10 Ga. App. 379, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-roehr-co-gactapp-1912.