Lee v. Wade
LEE v. WADE Et Al.
Opinion
Felton, Chief Judge.
“A prayer in a petition praying for process to issue requiring a defendant to answer at a time other than the time provided by law [Ga. L. 1946, pp. 761, 768;
Code Ann.
§ 81-201] is defective and process issued thereon is subject to a motion to quash whether the process actually issued is in accordance with the law or in accordance with the prayer.”
McCoy v. Romy Hammes Corporation, 99 Ga. App. 513 (1) ( 109 SE2d 807 ). This defect in the plaintiff’s prayer for process was amendable (Malcom v. Knox, 81 Ga.
*376 App. 579, 59 SE2d 542 ), but since the prayer for process was not amended, and since the process itself was amended to conform with the requested invalid term process, the process remained voidable. As this defective process was not waived by the defendants, the trial court did not err in sustaining the defendants’ motions to quash the process and dismiss the plaintiff’s action.
Decided September 12, 1961.
Lewis L. Scott, for plaintiff in error.
Cam U. Young, Franklin, Barham & Coleman, contra.
Judgment affirmed.
Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.