Water Lot Co. v. Bank of Brunswick

30 Ga. 685
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1860·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

By the Court

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

TJhere is but a single point in this case, and that is, whether service upon the head of a corporation, by leaving a copy of the writ at his notorious place of abode, is sufficient?

At common law, all service had to be personal. The Act of 1799 authorizes service to be made by leaving a copy at the notorious place of residence of the defendant. By our statutes, notorious place of residence and notorious place of abode are legal synonyms : Cobb, 471, 528, 530.

The Act of 1845, Cobb, sec. 80, comes in aid of the common law and of the Judiciary Act of 1799, as to the manner of serving the heads of corporations, by leaving a copy at the most public place or office of transacting the business of the corporation. We think the service in this case was good without amendment.

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

Water Lot Co. v. Bank of Brunswick, 30 Ga. 685 (Ga. 1860).

30 Ga. 685 (Water Lot Co. v. Bank of Brunswick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

East v. Louis Briggs Construction Company
98 S.E.2d 61 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Grimmett v. Barnwell
192 S.E. 191 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Jones v. Fox
176 S.E. 530 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Strickland v. Willingham
175 S.E. 605 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Venable v. Long Realty Co.
169 S.E. 322 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Robinson v. Bryson & Sons
165 S.E. 158 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Stuart Lumber Co. v. Perry
45 S.E. 251 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)