Thompson v. Lagerquist, 28703
| Decision Date | 04 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28703,28703 |
| Citation | 232 Ga. 75,205 S.E.2d 267 |
| Parties | Alfred E. THOMPSON, Jr. v. Fred W. LAGERQUIST, Jr., et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Horton, Malone & Crim, William W. Horton, Atlanta, for appellant.
Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler, Martin & Lowe, John A. Howard, Hoke Smith, Atlanta, Charles F. Reeves, East Point, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal is from a judgment dismissing the appellant's compalint in Fulton Superior Court to set aside and vacate a judgment rendered against him in the Civil Court of Fulton County and to enjoin the prosecution of said judgment.
On March 22, 1972, a default judgment was rendered in the Civil Court of Fulton County against the appellant herein. Subsequent thereto, the appellee proceeded to prosecute said judgment through a garnishment proceeding against the appellant.
Thereafter, on February 28, 1973, the appellant filed this complaint in Fulton Superior Court to set aside and vacate the default judgment and to enjoin the appellant from the prosecution of said judgment.
Service was perfected in the action in the Civil Court of Fulton County by a deputy marshal who made the following return:
The sworn pleadings and uncontradicted evidence before the trial court show that the appellant, his wife and their minor children reside at 3048 Rodenhaven Drive, N.W., Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia, and that there has been no other person of suitable age residing at the appellant's dwelling house; that the maid, Mildred Reese, has never resided at the appellant's dwelling house, that neither the appellant nor his wife was ever advised concerning the suit and summons until after judgment, nor have they ever received or seen the suit and summons issued in the Civil Court of Fulton County, and that the appellant has never waived service of that law suit. Held:
Code Ann. § 81A-104(d)(7) requires delivery of the summons and complaint '(i) n all other cases to the defendant personally, or by leaving copies thereof at his dwellinghouse or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.' This court has strictly construed the provisions of this code section, and rightfully so, since notice is the very bedrock of due process. In DeJarnette Supply Company v. F. P. Plaza, Inc., 229 Ga. 625, 193 S.E.2d 852, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whiteside v. Geico Indem. Co., No. 18-15074
...Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Barker , 271 Ga. 35, 37, 518 S.E.2d 126 (1999). Notice "is the very bedrock of due process." Thompson v. Lagerquist , 232 Ga. 75, 76, 205 S.E.2d 267 (1974). Although GEICO had no notice of the lawsuit against its insured, the default judgment in that case was used as the......
-
Lexington Developers, Inc. v. O'Neal Const. Co., Inc.
...of notice the suit was in default. Our Supreme Court has held that "notice is the very bedrock of due process" (Thompson v. Lagerquist, 232 Ga. 75, 76, 205 S.E.2d 267, 268), and "(i)n the absence of service in conformity with such rules (for service of process), or the waiver thereof, no ju......
-
Lester v. Crooms, Inc.
..."leaving copies thereof" at his dwelling or usual place of residence, for notice is the very bedrock of due process. Thompson v. Lagerquist, 232 Ga. 75, 76, 205 S.E.2d 267. "In the absence of service in conformity with such rules, or the waiver thereof, no jurisdiction over the defendant is......
-
Estate of Thurman v. Dodaro, 67338
...notice is the very bedrock of due process." Headrick v. Fordham, 154 Ga.App. 415, 417, 268 S.E.2d 753 (1980); Thompson v. Lagerquist, 232 Ga. 75, 205 S.E.2d 267 (1974). Service on an attorney is not permitted where personal service is required. Browning v. Europa Hair, 244 Ga. 222, 224, 259......