West v. Forehand
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Stolz, Judge.
Code § 113-2105, under the provisions of which service was purportedly perfected, provides as follows: "In all cases where there are two or more executors or administrators, and one or more of such executors or administrators shall remove without the limits of this state, service of any writ or process upon those remaining in the state shall be as effectual and complete, for all purposes whatever, as though service had been made upon all such executors or administrators.” (Emphasis supplied.) This statute is cast in terms which are general enough apparently to encompass the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Johnson v. Bradstreet Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Spence v. RowellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
- Lucas v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
- Moore v. Baldwin CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
- McGinty v. GormleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
- Lloyd v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- McCullough v. Georgia Railroad Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005