Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens

Supreme Court of Georgia

Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens

45 S.E. 508, 118 Ga. 670, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 657

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens. Read the opinion of the Court — 115 Ga. 959 →

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 14, 1903·Published

Opinion

Candler, J.

A void process is not amendable, as it is equivalent to no process at all. Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens, 115 Ga. 959. And it is not within the power of a court of equity, by allowing an amendment to a process which this court has decided could not be made, to vitalize a suit brought on the law side of the court, which as to one of the defendants was void because he had never been served with legal process.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Twiggs & Oliver, for plaintiff. William F. Hardee, for defendant.

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

Candler, J.

A void process is not amendable, as it is equivalent to no process at all. Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens, 115 Ga. 959. And it is not within the power of a court of equity, by allowing an amendment to a process which this court has decided could not be made, to vitalize a suit brought on the law side of the court, which as to one of the defendants was void because he had never been served with legal process.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Twiggs & Oliver, for plaintiff. William F. Hardee, for defendant.

Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens, 45 S.E. 508, 118 Ga. 670, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 657 (Ga. 1903).

Pincite

45 S.E. 508 (Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related