TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tilford v. Franklin Fire Insurance

Tilford v. Franklin Fire Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Pa.

Tilford v. Franklin Fire Ins., 104 S.E. 19 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
September 17, 1920
Docket
No. 10994
Judges
Stephens
Citations
104 S.E. 1925 Ga. App. 6411920 Ga. App. LEXIS 122
Summary
Motion to arrest judgment; from Walker superior court— Judge Wright. October 2, 1919.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Stephens

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Stephens, J.

1. Where a defendant has failed to appear and answer a petition within the time allowed by law and a judgment by default has been rendered against him, the judgment will, on proper motion filed during the term, be arrested when it does not appear that process was issued against the defendant named in the petition, or where it does not appear that the defendant was served with the petition and process.

2. Process against a defendant other than the one named in the petition is not good.

(a) Wheye a petition is filed against “The Franklin Fire Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Pa.,” as the defendant, a process attached thereto against “Franklin Insurance Co.,” being on its face against *642 another and different defendant, is not good. Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens, 115 Ga. 959 ( 42 S. E. 266 ).

Decided September 17, 1920. Motion to arrest judgment; from Walker superior court— Judge Wright. October 2, 1919. Rosser & Shaw, for plaintiff. Smith, Hammond & Smith, Shattuck & Shattuck, for defendant.

3. Where one defendant was named in the petition and another defendant was named in the process, an entry of service, to the effect that service had been perfected upon “the defendant’s agent,” naming him, was ambiguous and showed no service upon the defendant named in the petition; and where the defendant named in the petition failed to appear and answer within the time allowed by law, a judgment by default, rendered against him upon such petition, process, and entry of service, was properly arrested and set aside.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1929: 11941: 119292026peak 1929 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sweeney v. Greenwood Index-Journal Co.37 F. Supp. 484 (W.D.S.C. 1941)
  2. Porter v. Brown146 S.E. 810 (S.C. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Sweeney v. Greenwood Index-Journal Co.37 F. Supp. 484 (W.D.S.C. 1941)
  2. Porter v. Brown146 S.E. 810 (S.C. 1929)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Neal-Millard Co. v. Owens, 42 S.E. 266 (Ga. 1902) 30

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list