Harley v. Harley
This text of 121 S.E.2d 640 (Harley v. Harley) 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.
Opinion
Under the facts of this case, the discharge of the resident defendant did not divest the court of jurisdiction of the two nonresident defendants, since the nonresident defendants waived the right to object to venue when, after the discharge of the resident defendant, they filed an .additional pleading to the merits. Hudgins Contracting Co. v. Redmond, 178 Ga. 317 (173 SE 135); Burger v. Noble, 81 Ga. App. 759 (59 SE2d 761); 92 C.J.S. 820-822, § 124; 56 Am Jur. 44, '§ 40. Therefore the trial court properly overruled the nonresident' defendants’ later motion to strike, in the nature of a general demurrer, raising the question of jurisdiction.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
121 S.E.2d 640, 217 Ga. 205, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harley-v-harley-ga-1961.