Lowe v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 07 April 1939
• Docket Number: No. 27360.,27360.
• Citation: 2 S.E.2d. 748
• Parties: LOWE. v. ROBERTS et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

2 S.E.2d. 748

LOWE.

v.ROBERTS et al.

No. 27360.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

April 7, 1939.

Syllabus by the Court.

The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer. The act of 1937 (Ga.Laws 1937, p. 732), was not intended to make any further exception to the constitutional provision that a defendant must be sued in the county of his residence. To hold otherwisewould be to permit the plaintiff to select the county in which he might file suit, irrespective of the residence of the citizen of this state.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries; Judge.

Action by M. C. Lowe against C. F. Roberts and others for injuries in automobile accident. To review a judgment for the defendants, plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Hewlett & Dennis and T. F. Bowden, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Bryan & Mobley, W. L. Bryan, and Andrew A. Baumstark, all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

GUERRY, Judge.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Minnie C. Lowe, brought her action in Fulton County, Georgia, against Goldstein & Netter, a partnership, and residents of the state of Kentucky, and against the individual members of the partnership and also against C. F. Roberts (correctly known as C. T. Roberts), a resident of Jones County, Georgia, for injuries sustained by reason of the alleged concurrent negligence of the defendants, the negligence alleged against Goldstein & Netter being that its agent, while driving their truck in Bibb County, Georgia, suddenly stopped the same without any warning and plaintiff was riding in a car immediately behind this truck and caused the car in which she was riding also to stop suddenly without having time to give any warning to drivers in her rear and that C. F. Roberts was negligent in driving at an illegal rate of speed and ran into her car from the rear, and caused the injuries complained of. Roberts filed a special appearance and demurred to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the Act of 1937, pages 732, 733, has no application so as to give jurisdiction to any court over him save in the county of his residence, as to actions of this character. The trial judge passed the following order to which exceptions were taken, "Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss the above stated case as to the defendant, C. F. Roberts, the same is sustained and said case is hereby dismissed as to C. F. Roberts, upon the ground that this Court is without jurisdiction to try the case as to him but that the Superior Court...