From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgan v. Pacific Finance Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 19, 1977
236 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

53866.

ARGUED MAY 2, 1977.

DECIDED MAY 19, 1977.

Default judgment. Bibb Civil Court. Before Judge Carlisle.

Raiford Stanley, Jr., Willie Abrams, for appellant.

Herndon Hubble, John W. Hubble, Jr., for appellee.


Plaintiff, Pacific Finance Company, filed a complaint on a note against defendant, Johnny L. Morgan. Copies of the summons and complaint were left with defendant's next door neighbor who apparently delivered them to defendant promptly.

On October 22, 1975, a default judgment was entered against defendant. Defendant filed a motion to set aside judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction on September 20, 1976. Defendant's motion was denied and he appeals. Held:

The failure to obtain service by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein renders the judgment void, even though the defendant may have had knowledge of the pending lawsuit. Code Ann. § 81A-104 (d) (7) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 610; 1968, pp. 1104, 1105); Hardwick v. Fry, 137 Ga. App. 771 ( 225 S.E.2d 88); Thompson v. Lagerquist, 232 Ga. 75, 76 ( 205 S.E.2d 267); Mahone v. Marshall Furniture Co., 142 Ga. App. 242.

Judgment reversed. Bell, C. J., and Smith, J., concur.

ARGUED MAY 2, 1977 — DECIDED MAY 19, 1977.


Summaries of

Morgan v. Pacific Finance Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 19, 1977
236 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

Morgan v. Pacific Finance Company

Case Details

Full title:MORGAN v. PACIFIC FINANCE COMPANY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: May 19, 1977

Citations

236 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
236 S.E.2d 28

Citing Cases

Headrick v. Fordham

Thus, the service remained insufficient notwithstanding the fact that Fordham had acquired knowledge of the…

Glass v. Byrom

Thompson v. Lagerquist, 232 Ga. 75 ( 205 S.E.2d 267). This service of process was insufficient…