Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Worley Bros. Granite Co. v. Haskins
Citations: 124 S.E.2d 663; 105 Ga. App. 444; 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 951Docket: 39175
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; February 14, 1962; Georgia; State Appellate Court
In Worley Brothers Granite Company, Inc. v. Haskins, the Court of Appeals of Georgia addressed the implications of a defendant's actions in attachment proceedings. The court clarified that while the filing of a replevy bond typically constitutes a personal appearance, it does not prevent the defendant from challenging the court's jurisdiction over their person. The case referenced several precedents establishing that filing a cross-action equates to a general appearance, thus submitting the defendant to the court's jurisdiction. Once a defendant assumes the role of an actor by filing a counterclaim or similar pleadings, they cannot later dismiss that action to escape jurisdiction, particularly if the plaintiff objects. The ruling distinguished this case from previous cases where no objection was raised regarding the withdrawal of an answer, indicating that the current plaintiff preserved their rights to contest the court's jurisdiction through their objections. Consequently, the court maintained that the defendant's dismissal of their cross-action did not negate the established jurisdiction over their person. The trial court incorrectly upheld the defendant's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiff's declaration in attachment, as the defendant waived this plea by filing a cross-action. However, the court correctly dismissed the attachment because it was based on a void instrument that claimed to be an affidavit, which a corporation cannot legitimately produce. Amendments cannot convert a void instrument into a valid affidavit, and void proceedings are not subject to amendment. The process of attachment must rely on a valid affidavit as stipulated by law. Although an amendment can add facts to an existing affidavit, it cannot retroactively provide necessary attestations. With the dismissal of the attachment, the declaration in attachment effectively transformed into a common law suit upon the defendant's submission to the court's jurisdiction. The judgment was partially reversed and partially affirmed, with judges Nichols and Jordan concurring.