Legal Opinion
Burch v. Crown Laundry
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided December 3, 1948No. 32182, 32183, 32184PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) Process is the means whereby the court compels the appearance of a defendant before it for a compliance with its demands. See Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens, 115 Ga. 959, 961 (42 S. E. 266). To every petition there must be annexed a process unless the. same be waived. Code, § 81-201. If there be no prayer for. process and the clerk proceeds to attach a process without the same, this action on the part of the clerk is without authority; the person against whom it is directed is not thereby made a party to the case (Seisel & Co. v. Wells, 99 Ga. 159 (1) 25 S: E.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Neal-Millard Co. v. OwensSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Nicholas v. British America Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Jackson v. JacksonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Seisel & Co. v. WellsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
- McGhee v. Mayor of GainesvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Crown Laundry v. BurchSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Banister v. HubbardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
- SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY v. HollomonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
- Douglas Motor Sales, Inc. v. Romy Hammes Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
- Purcell v. HillCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.