Odom v. Beard

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Odom v. Beard

151 S.E.2d 468, 114 Ga. App. 364, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 769

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1966

Docket42057

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 151 S.E.2d 468 (Odom v. Beard) 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

Odom v. Beard, 151 S.E.2d 468, 114 Ga. App. 364, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 769 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Presiding Judge.

“Residence” and “domicile” are not synonymous and convertible terms. Worsham v. Ligon, 144 Ga. 707, 711 (87 SE 1025); Avery v. Bower, 170 Ga. 202, 204 (152 SE 239); Commercial Bank v. Pharr, 75 Ga. App. 364, 376 (43 SE2d 439). This being so, it seems inconsistent to hold, as held in Daniel v. Sullivan, 46 Ga. 277 (1872), that one’s legal residence for the purpose of being sued in this state is necessarily the same county as his domicile where domicile is determined by that part of Code § 79-401 which provides, “The domicile of every person of full age, and laboring under no disability, is the place where the family of [365]*365such person shall permanently reside, if in this state.” However, we are compelled to follow the Daniel case here, as there is no substantial basis in fact to distinguish that case from this one. Where the defendant in this case actually resided part of the time in Chatham County and part of the time in Toombs County and his family permanently resided in Toombs County at the time this action for personal injuries was brought against him in Chatham County, his legal residence for the purpose of this case was in Toombs County. The trial court erred in finding against the defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction of the Chatham Superior Court.

Argued June 9, 1966 Decided September 15, 1966 Rehearing denied September 29, 1966 CoHsh, Smith & Bernier, Julian F. Corish, for appellant. Donald E. Austin, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Presiding Judge.

“Residence” and “domicile” are not synonymous and convertible terms. Worsham v. Ligon, 144 Ga. 707, 711 (87 SE 1025); Avery v. Bower, 170 Ga. 202, 204 (152 SE 239); Commercial Bank v. Pharr, 75 Ga. App. 364, 376 (43 SE2d 439). This being so, it seems inconsistent to hold, as held in Daniel v. Sullivan, 46 Ga. 277 (1872), that one’s legal residence for the purpose of being sued in this state is necessarily the same county as his domicile where domicile is determined by that part of Code § 79-401 which provides, “The domicile of every person of full age, and laboring under no disability, is the place where the family of [365]*365such person shall permanently reside, if in this state.” However, we are compelled to follow the Daniel case here, as there is no substantial basis in fact to distinguish that case from this one. Where the defendant in this case actually resided part of the time in Chatham County and part of the time in Toombs County and his family permanently resided in Toombs County at the time this action for personal injuries was brought against him in Chatham County, his legal residence for the purpose of this case was in Toombs County. The trial court erred in finding against the defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction of the Chatham Superior Court.

Argued June 9, 1966 Decided September 15, 1966 Rehearing denied September 29, 1966 CoHsh, Smith & Bernier, Julian F. Corish, for appellant. Donald E. Austin, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 S.E.2d 468, 114 Ga. App. 364, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odom-v-beard-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack