Martin v. City of Tifton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Martin v. City of Tifton

63 S.E. 1132, 6 Ga. App. 16, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 161

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 23, 1909

Docket1654

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 63 S.E. 1132 (Martin v. City of Tifton) 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

Martin v. City of Tifton, 63 S.E. 1132, 6 Ga. App. 16, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. At common law, process was served on a municipal corpora' tion by serving its mayor or other head officer, as being the “most visible part of the corporation.” In the absence of statutory provision, this manner of service of process upon municipalities is still valid. Therefore, in a certiorari proceeding in which the municipality is the defendant in certiorari, notice of the sanction of the writ, and of the time and place of hearing, directed to the mayor of the named municipality and served upon him as mayor, is a sufficient compliance with section 4644 of the Civil Code. 14 Enc. PI. & Pr. 232; Cloud v. Pierce City, 86 Mo. 357.

2. The rule of service above stated is not affected by the fact that the mayor served with the notice is himself the municipal official whose judgment it is sought to review on certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. At common law, process was served on a municipal corpora' tion by serving its mayor or other head officer, as being the “most visible part of the corporation.” In the absence of statutory provision, this manner of service of process upon municipalities is still valid. Therefore, in a certiorari proceeding in which the municipality is the defendant in certiorari, notice of the sanction of the writ, and of the time and place of hearing, directed to the mayor of the named municipality and served upon him as mayor, is a sufficient compliance with section 4644 of the Civil Code. 14 Enc. PI. & Pr. 232; Cloud v. Pierce City, 86 Mo. 357.

2. The rule of service above stated is not affected by the fact that the mayor served with the notice is himself the municipal official whose judgment it is sought to review on certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.E. 1132, 6 Ga. App. 16, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-city-of-tifton-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack