Peeples v. Mullins

Supreme Court of Georgia

Peeples v. Mullins

168 S.E. 785, 176 Ga. 743, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 276

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 18, 1933·No. No. 9300·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. “The general rule is that the courts of this State have no extraterritorial jurisdiction, and can not hold citizens of other States amenable to its process, or bind them by a judgment in personam, without their consent.” Irons v. American National Bank, 175 Ga. 552 (165 S. E. 741), and cit.

2. The court did not err in setting' aside the order declaring service perfected by publication on the defendant Mullins, and in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Gobi & Bright and George G. McCoy, for plaintiff. Abrahams, Bouhan, Atkinson & Lawrence, for defendants.

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

Hill, J.

1. “The general rule is that the courts of this State have no extraterritorial jurisdiction, and can not hold citizens of other States amenable to its process, or bind them by a judgment in personam, without their consent.” Irons v. American National Bank, 175 Ga. 552 (165 S. E. 741), and cit.

2. The court did not err in setting' aside the order declaring service perfected by publication on the defendant Mullins, and in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Gobi & Bright and George G. McCoy, for plaintiff. Abrahams, Bouhan, Atkinson & Lawrence, for defendants.

Peeples v. Mullins, 168 S.E. 785, 176 Ga. 743, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 276 (Ga. 1933).

Pincite

168 S.E. 785 (Peeples v. Mullins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related