United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lawrence

Court of Appeals of Georgia

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lawrence

184 S.E. 922, 53 Ga. App. 111, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 18

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 27, 1936

Docket24905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 S.E. 922 (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lawrence) 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

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lawrence, 184 S.E. 922, 53 Ga. App. 111, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 18 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

I. The ground of attachment that the defendant is actually removing or about to remove beyond the limits of the county is applicable to a corporation which is domiciled within the county. Lawrence v. Lee’s Department Store, 48 Ga. App. 271 (172 S. E. 471). Where a mercantile corporation does business in one county and has its principal office and place of business, and therefore its domicile or residence in that county (Sprinkle v. Southern Empress Co., 141 Ga. 21, 80 S. E. 288), but where all the officers of the corporation reside in another county and the corporation has decided to discontinue its business in [112]*112the county in which it is domiciled, and the business of the corporation and the stock of goods belonging to it are about to be removed to the other county, and the principal office and place of business in the city of the corporation’s domicile is by the corporation to be discontinued, the inference is authorized that the corporation is actually removing or about to remove from the county of its domicile, and therefore, it is subject to attachment.

Decided February 27, 1936. Adhered to on rehearing, March 28, 1936. Marlin, Martin & Snow, for plaintiff in error. Sibley & Allen, contra.

2. The judgment for the plaintiff, on the agreed statement of facts, against the surety on the replevy bond given by the defendant in attachment, was authorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., mid Sutton, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

I. The ground of attachment that the defendant is actually removing or about to remove beyond the limits of the county is applicable to a corporation which is domiciled within the county. Lawrence v. Lee’s Department Store, 48 Ga. App. 271 (172 S. E. 471). Where a mercantile corporation does business in one county and has its principal office and place of business, and therefore its domicile or residence in that county (Sprinkle v. Southern Empress Co., 141 Ga. 21, 80 S. E. 288), but where all the officers of the corporation reside in another county and the corporation has decided to discontinue its business in [112]*112the county in which it is domiciled, and the business of the corporation and the stock of goods belonging to it are about to be removed to the other county, and the principal office and place of business in the city of the corporation’s domicile is by the corporation to be discontinued, the inference is authorized that the corporation is actually removing or about to remove from the county of its domicile, and therefore, it is subject to attachment.

Decided February 27, 1936. Adhered to on rehearing, March 28, 1936. Marlin, Martin & Snow, for plaintiff in error. Sibley & Allen, contra.

2. The judgment for the plaintiff, on the agreed statement of facts, against the surety on the replevy bond given by the defendant in attachment, was authorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., mid Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 S.E. 922, 53 Ga. App. 111, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-v-lawrence-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack