Lee v. Wade

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lee v. Wade

121 S.E.2d 694, 104 Ga. App. 375, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 687

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 12, 1961

Docket39010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 121 S.E.2d 694 (Lee v. Wade) 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

Lee v. Wade, 121 S.E.2d 694, 104 Ga. App. 375, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

“A prayer in a petition praying for process to issue requiring a defendant to answer at a time other than the time provided by law [Ga. L. 1946, pp. 761, 768; Code Ann. § 81-201] is defective and process issued thereon is subject to a motion to quash whether the process actually issued is in accordance with the law or in accordance with the prayer.” McCoy v. Romy Hammes Corporation, 99 Ga. App. 513(1) (109 SE2d 807). This defect in the plaintiff’s prayer for process was amendable (Malcom v. Knox, 81 Ga. *376 App. 579, 59 SE2d 542), but since the prayer for process was not amended, and since the process itself was amended to conform with the requested invalid term process, the process remained voidable. As this defective process was not waived by the defendants, the trial court did not err in sustaining the defendants’ motions to quash the process and dismiss the plaintiff’s action.

Decided September 12, 1961. Lewis L. Scott, for plaintiff in error. Cam U. Young, Franklin, Barham & Coleman, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

“A prayer in a petition praying for process to issue requiring a defendant to answer at a time other than the time provided by law [Ga. L. 1946, pp. 761, 768; Code Ann. § 81-201] is defective and process issued thereon is subject to a motion to quash whether the process actually issued is in accordance with the law or in accordance with the prayer.” McCoy v. Romy Hammes Corporation, 99 Ga. App. 513(1) (109 SE2d 807). This defect in the plaintiff’s prayer for process was amendable (Malcom v. Knox, 81 Ga. *376 App. 579, 59 SE2d 542), but since the prayer for process was not amended, and since the process itself was amended to conform with the requested invalid term process, the process remained voidable. As this defective process was not waived by the defendants, the trial court did not err in sustaining the defendants’ motions to quash the process and dismiss the plaintiff’s action.

Decided September 12, 1961. Lewis L. Scott, for plaintiff in error. Cam U. Young, Franklin, Barham & Coleman, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E.2d 694, 104 Ga. App. 375, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-wade-gactapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack