McLeay v. Davison-Paxon-Stokes Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McLeay v. Davison-Paxon-Stokes Co.

88 S.E. 992, 18 Ga. App. 134, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 170

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 19, 1916

Docket6917

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 992 (McLeay v. Davison-Paxon-Stokes 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

McLeay v. Davison-Paxon-Stokes Co., 88 S.E. 992, 18 Ga. App. 134, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 170 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

-Wade, J.

Under the facts of this case, the court did not err in overruling the certiorari, which brought up for review the judgment of a magistrate finding against the traverse to a return of service. Service was effected by leaving copies with the clerk in the office of a hotel and apartment house, which was the defendant’s place of abode. Ingress and egress to and from the apartment occupied by the defendant was had through the main hall or entrance of the building, as well as otherwise. The case of Perry v. Perry, 103 Ga. 706 (30 S. E. 663), is not in point, for in that ease, though the defendant resided in the same building with his son-in-law, who conducted a dr.ug-store on the ground floor, the floor occupied by the defendant as a residence was as separate and distinct from that occupied by his son-in-law as if in a different building. Judgment affirmed.

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

-Wade, J.

Under the facts of this case, the court did not err in overruling the certiorari, which brought up for review the judgment of a magistrate finding against the traverse to a return of service. Service was effected by leaving copies with the clerk in the office of a hotel and apartment house, which was the defendant’s place of abode. Ingress and egress to and from the apartment occupied by the defendant was had through the main hall or entrance of the building, as well as otherwise. The case of Perry v. Perry, 103 Ga. 706 (30 S. E. 663), is not in point, for in that ease, though the defendant resided in the same building with his son-in-law, who conducted a dr.ug-store on the ground floor, the floor occupied by the defendant as a residence was as separate and distinct from that occupied by his son-in-law as if in a different building. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 992, 18 Ga. App. 134, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcleay-v-davison-paxon-stokes-co-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack