Price v. Prophitt, 205 S.E.2d 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Price v. Prophitt, 205 S.E.2d 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Kuller v. Beard Props., Inc., 276 S.E.2d 111 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
How cited ↗
Cited for
131 Ga. App. at 24 Waiver of defenses regarding jurisdiction and venue1 citing caseserved in Muscogee County. In their timely answer, they admitted the allegation of their residency in Muscogee County. Approximately one hour after the answer…opening of page *24 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Kuller v. Beard Props., Inc., 276 S.E.2d 111 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).published
    Daniel & Daniel v. Stewart Bros., 139 Ga. App. 372, 375-376 , supra. And, the defenses of lack of jurisdiction, venue or insufficiency of service of process is waived, where as here it is not made in “an appropriate responsive pleading as…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Price Et Al.
v.
Prophitt
49026.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Feb 19, 1974.
Published opinion
205 S.E.2d 30
1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1311
W. H. Young, III, for appellants., H. Baxter Harcourt, Kelly, Champion, Benney & Pease, John W. Benney, for appellee.
Stolz, Hall, Been.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Stolz, Judge.

The defendants in this tort action were personally[*24] served in Muscogee County. In their timely answer, they admitted the allegation of their residency in Muscogee County. Approximately one hour after the answer was filed, the defendants’ counsel, having discovered that the defendants were Harris County residents, filed an amendment to their answer, denying that the defendants were residents of Muscogee County, and a motion to dismiss or in lieu thereof to quash the return of summons. The defendants appeal from the overruling of their motion. Held:

Submitted February 11, 1974 Decided February 19, 1974. W. H. Young, III, for appellants. H. Baxter Harcourt, Kelly, Champion, Benney & Pease, John W. Benney, for appellee.

Code Ann. § 81A-112 (h), (1) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609,622) provides as follows: "A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the circumstances described in subsection (g), or (B) if it is neither made by motion under this section nor included in a responsive pleading, as originally filed. ” (Emphasis supplied.) The defendants, having failed to take advantage of their personal privilege to require trial of a complaint in law in the county where they reside by asserting the privilege in an appropriate responsive pleading as originally filed, waived any defense of jurisdiction over their persons or improper venue in respect to trial in another county where the plaintiff had filed his complaint. Scardina v. Scardina, 229 Ga. 341 (191 SE2d 52) and cits. Those cases in which the defendants were permitted to challenge personal jurisdiction after they had made a general appearance without pleading to the merits, are not applicable to the facts in the instant case.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Been, J., concur.