Ferguson v. New Manchester Manufacturing Co.
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Foster & Kleiser, Inc. v. Coe & Payne Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)
- Hilton v. Maddox, Bishop, Hayton Frame & Trim Contractors, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
- Cherry v. Gilbert (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
- Chance v. Planters Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Ga. 1963)
- United States Casualty Co. v. American Oil Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)
- Cutliffe v. Pryse (Ga. 1938)
- Pryse v. Cutliffe (Ga. Ct. App. 1938)
- Bright v. Auto Finance & Loan Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
- Duren v. Pollock (Ga. Ct. App. 1933)
- Taylor v. State (Ga. 1925)
- Lamb v. Howard (Ga. 1920)
- Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern Railway Co. v. Wilson (Ga. 1904)
- Bentley v. Reid (5th Cir. 1904)
- Nicholas v. British America Assurance Co. (Ga. 1900)
- Southern Railway Co. v. Newton (Ga. 1899)
- Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad v. Ragan (Ga. 1898)
- McClendon & Co. v. Hernando Phosphate Co. (Ga. 1897)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The only question in this case is whether the court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s action, on the statement of facts disclosed by the record. It appears therefrom that the plaintiff filed his declaration in the clerk’s office against the defendant, but which was not served so as to give the superior court jurisdiction as provided by law, and the case was dismissed for ivant of jurisdiction. Within six months thereafter the plaintiff renewed his suit, which second suit was dismissed by the court, and the plaintiff excepted. This case comes within the principle decided by this court in Gray, executor, vs. Hodges, 50 Georgia, 262, and must control it. The filing the declaration in the clerk’s office, when service has been perfected as provided by law, will be considered as the commencement of the suit, but the mere filing of the declaration, without more, is not the commencement of a suit without service on a defendant, as provided by law, of whom the court has jurisdiction.
Let the judgment of ‘the Court below be affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.