SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY v. Hollomon
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtNichols, J.
The defendant’s motion to quash the process and dismiss the petition was predicated upon the fact that the prayer for process was as follows: “That process do issue directed to the said defendant, requiring them to be and appear at the next term of this court, then and there to answer this your petitioner’s complaint.” And that the process annexed to such petition by the clerk of the superior court read in part as follows: “The defendant Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company is hereby required personally or by attorney to be and appear at the superior court to be held in and for said county…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Crown Laundry v. BurchSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Seisel & Co. v. WellsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
- Malcom v. KnoxCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
- Burch v. Crown LaundryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Stansell v. GrantCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
3Cited by10 opinions
- Thompson v. WillsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
- Hunt v. DenbyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Burrow v. DickersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- McCoy v. Romy Hammes CorporationCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
- Sherman v. FloydCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.