Hyfield v. Sims & Co.
Supreme Court of Georgia
Justice’s court. Process. Service. Before Judge Maddox. Floyd superior court. March term, 1892. Sims & Co. sued Hyfield in a justice’s court. The summons was dated March 1, and directed the defendant to appear on March 16, 1888, which was the regular court day. He was served on March 11. No one appeared for either party at the March term, and the justice entered on his docket that “ for want of service in time, ease goes over to April term.”
Read the full summary
Justice’s court. Process. Service. Before Judge Maddox. Floyd superior court. March term, 1892. Sims & Co. sued Hyfield in a justice’s court. The summons was dated March 1, and directed the defendant to appear on March 16, 1888, which was the regular court day. He was served on March 11. No one appeared for either party at the March term, and the justice entered on his docket that “ for want of service in time, ease goes over to April term.” At that term the defendant did not appear, and judgment was rendered against him. To the levy of the execution issued therefrom he interposed an…
1Opinion of the Court
Simmons, Justice.
The main point argued in this case was, whether the act of October 17th, 1886 (Acts 1886, p. 103), applied to justices’ courts. It was contended by counsel for the plaintiff’ in error that it does not apply, because it uses the word “ process,” and no process is issued from a justice’s court. The word “ process,” as used in the act, means the writ issued by any court against the de-' fendant, commanding him to appear, etc. It includes a summons from a justice’s court, as well as the process attached to the declaration by the clerk in a case brought in the superior court.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Western & Atlantic Railroad v. PittsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ray v. Atlanta Banking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1900