Sawyer v. Cargile

• Decision Date: 25 April 1884
• Citation: 72 Ga. 290
• Parties: SAWYER v. CARGILE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

72 Ga. 290

SAWYER v. CARGILE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 25, 1884

February Term, 1884.

Sunday is dies non juridicus, and service cannot be made or legal notice given on that day, or the business or work of ordinary callings done. Therefore, the publication of the advertisement of a marshal's sale for taxes in a newspaper appearing on Sunday was not legal, and the sale thereunder passed no title.

Sunday. Title. Advertisement. Levy and Sale. Before Judge HAMMOND. Fulton Superior Court. October Term, 1883.

Sawyer brought complaint for land against Cargile. One link in the chain of title on which plaintiff's case depended was a deed made by the marshal of the city of Atlanta, under an execution issued for city taxes due by Cargile for 1879. It appeared from the evidence introduced by plaintiff that the advertisement of this tax sale issued four times, as follows On Sunday, November 2; Thursday, November 13; Friday November 21; Friday, November 28. It was also proved that the Sunday issue of the newspaper had a much larger circulation than on any other day. On motion, the court granted a non-suit, and plaintiff excepted.

REED REINHARDT & ARROWOOD, for plaintiff in error.

MARSHALL J. CLARKE, for defendant.

JACKSON, Chief Justice.

Sawyer sued Cargile for a lot of land in Atlanta. The plaintiff derived title from the city of Atlanta, and the city from the sale of the land as defendant's property for taxes. So that the question is, did title pass out of defendant into the city by that sale; if it did, the non-suit was wrong; if not, it was right.

It did not pass from defendant to the city, among other reasons, because the land was not legally advertised for sale, the first notice in the newspaper appearing on Sunday, and without that notice it was not long enough advertised. Sunday is dies non juridicus, and service cannot be made, or legal notice given on that day, or the business or work of ordinary callings done. Code, §4, sub-sec. 8, §4579; 49 Ga. 436; 12 Id., 93 380; 31 Id. 638, 607; 41 Id., 449; 57 Id., 179; 59 Id., 683; 62 Id., 449. So the non-suit was right.

Judgment affirmed.^[*]

---------

Notes:

^[*] As to attachments, see Code, §3274. As to warrants, see 62 Ga. 449, 452. See also 55 Id., 244; 23 Ga. 49; 57 Cal. 333. Contra, see (cited for plaintiff in error), 55 Ga. 439, 126, 244; 4 Pet., 349; 16 How., 610, 58 Ga. 208; 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.), 172; 5 Nev. 41 422 423

This question has recently been considered, and the authorities fully reviewed by the Supreme Court of Indiana in an unpublished case, which cannot be cited by name, as it is not before the...