Southern Railway Co. v. Hagan
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Render & Hammett v. Hartford Fire Insurance (Ga. Ct. App. 1925)
- K. & L. Construction Co. v. Central Bank & Trust Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
- Twilley & Hodges v. Middle Georgia Bank (Ga. Ct. App. 1922)
- North Georgia Banking Co. v. Fancher (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)
- Arnold & Son v. Rhodes (Ga. Ct. App. 1920)
- Stuart Lumber Co. v. Perry (Ga. 1903)
- Holbrook & Co. v. Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad (Ga. 1901)
- Third National Bank v. McCullough Bros. (Ga. 1899)
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
1. The law requiring service of a summons of garnishment directed tó a corporation to be made upon “the agent in charge of the office or business of the corporation in the county or district at the time of service, ’ ’ it follows that the return of an officer, merely stating that he had served a named railway company with a summons of garnishment “ by serving [a designated person], supt., personally” therewith, without describing this person as the agent in charge of the office or business of the company, in the county or district wherein the service was made, will not afford a basis for entering a judgment against the company for failure to answer. Civil Code, § 4710; Hargis v. Railway Co., 90 Ca. 42.
2. This court can not take judicial cognizance of the nature of the duties required of the superintendent of a railway company in any particular town or city. Judgment reversed.'
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.