Pendleton v. Valdosta Bank & Trust Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pendleton v. Valdosta Bank & Trust Co.

88 S.E. 211, 17 Ga. App. 711, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 873

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1916

Docket6665

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 211 (Pendleton v. Valdosta Bank & Trust 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

Pendleton v. Valdosta Bank & Trust Co., 88 S.E. 211, 17 Ga. App. 711, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 873 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. The filing of the plaintiff's petition, when valid process is attached and proper service is made on the defendant, is the commencement of the suit. And in a suit against several defendants, where valid process is attached to the petition, and service is made on one or more of the defendants in time for the appearance term, but some of them are not so served, and where, on motion of the plaintiff, the court passes an appropriate order to perfect service by the next term of the court on such defendants as have not been served, and where such service is afterwards perfected in accordance with this order, the suit as regards all of the defendants is kept alive, and will be treated as having been commenced at the time of the filing of the petition. Cox v. Strickland, 120 Ga. 104, 113, 114 (47 S. E. 912, 1 Ann. Cas. 870); Nicholas v. British Assurance Co., 109 Ga. 621, 624 (34 S. E. 1004). In such a case, as respects any of the defendants upon whom service has afterward been so perfected, the provision of section 4252 of the Civil Code, as to stating, in the statutory notice where attorney’s fees are claimed, the term of the court to which suit will be brought, is substantially complied with where in such notice it is stated that the suit will be filed at that term of the court. This ruling is not in conflict with the decision of this court in Toole v. Cook, 15 Ga. App. 133 (82 S. E. 772), for in that case the petition when filed had no process attached to it.

2. There was no error in overruling the demurrer to the petition, or in admitting in evidence the copy of the plaintiff’s notice of its intention to sue. And the court, sitting without the intervention of a jury, properly entered judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for, including attorney’s fees.

Judgment affirmed.

Russell, O. J., absent.

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

Broyles, J.

1. The filing of the plaintiff's petition, when valid process is attached and proper service is made on the defendant, is the commencement of the suit. And in a suit against several defendants, where valid process is attached to the petition, and service is made on one or more of the defendants in time for the appearance term, but some of them are not so served, and where, on motion of the plaintiff, the court passes an appropriate order to perfect service by the next term of the court on such defendants as have not been served, and where such service is afterwards perfected in accordance with this order, the suit as regards all of the defendants is kept alive, and will be treated as having been commenced at the time of the filing of the petition. Cox v. Strickland, 120 Ga. 104, 113, 114 (47 S. E. 912, 1 Ann. Cas. 870); Nicholas v. British Assurance Co., 109 Ga. 621, 624 (34 S. E. 1004). In such a case, as respects any of the defendants upon whom service has afterward been so perfected, the provision of section 4252 of the Civil Code, as to stating, in the statutory notice where attorney’s fees are claimed, the term of the court to which suit will be brought, is substantially complied with where in such notice it is stated that the suit will be filed at that term of the court. This ruling is not in conflict with the decision of this court in Toole v. Cook, 15 Ga. App. 133 (82 S. E. 772), for in that case the petition when filed had no process attached to it.

2. There was no error in overruling the demurrer to the petition, or in admitting in evidence the copy of the plaintiff’s notice of its intention to sue. And the court, sitting without the intervention of a jury, properly entered judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for, including attorney’s fees.

Judgment affirmed.

Russell, O. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 211, 17 Ga. App. 711, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendleton-v-valdosta-bank-trust-co-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack