Case ID: ga_20/html/0336-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lumpkin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 56.
    Gunby, Daniel & Co. plaintiffs in error, vs. Welcher & Carter, defendants in error.
    £l.] Process directed to one who is Coroner de facto, and executed by him,, is good.
    Complaint, in Marion Superior Court. Decided by Judge Worrill, March Term, 1856.
    Gunby, Daniel & Co. sued Weleher & Carter on an account. At the August Term, 1854, of said Court, defendants filed pleas of the general issue, payment and set-off. At' the March Term, 1856, the case having been called up for trial on the appeal, John M. Weleher, one of the defendants, was permitted to file a plea (under oath) alleging that the declaration and process sued out in said case was served upon him by one Isaac G. Livingston, who pretended, at the time, to be the Coroner of said county, but who was, in fact, not the Coroner of Marion County, nor was he holding any other office which authorized him to serve and execute the process of said Court.
    The said Weleher then moved to continue said case, on the following grounds:
    1st. Because an exemplification from the records of the Executive Department of Georgia, substantiating the allegations of said last mentioned plea, had been lost or mislaid, and could not be procured to be used in evidence in said case.
    2d. Because said exemplification had been lost too recently to allow said defendant time to procure another to be used at the present term of the Court; that defendant expects to procure another exemplification by the next term of said Court, and does not move to continue the case merely for delay, but for the purpose of obtaining said evidence.
    Mr. Blandeord, one of said defendant’s Counsel, having been introduced in support of said showing for a continuance, testified that he had in his possession an exemplification, (which he had searched for and could not now find,) a copy of which he could not make out from memory, but which, -to the best of his recollection, recited that Isaac 0. Livingston-had been elected Coroner of Marion County for the years-1852 and 1854; that the commission for Livingston and the dedimus to the Inferior Court, had been returned to the Executive unexecuted and not complied with ; and further, that Said exemplification, which bore date in the month of February, 1856, showed other things going to prove that said Livingston was not Coroner.
    Upon this showing, the Court allowed said defendant to continue the case, and plaintiffs fexcepted and assign as error the allowance by the Court of the last mentioned plea filed by defendant, and the order granting a continuance of the-case.
    Johnson & Patterson, for plaintiffs in error.
    Blandford & Crawford, for defendants.
   By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

Settle one point in this case and it is decided. Are the acts of a Coroner, defacto, one who has been elected and performed the duties of the office, but who has failed to qualify in terms of the law, valid ? So far as the public are concerned, such have been the uniform adjudications of all Courts.

The showing made by the defendants for a continuance, discloses the fact that Isaac Gr. Livingston had been elected and qualified to serve as Coroner of Marion County for previous years; that he had been elected for the year when this writ was served, hut had failed to qualify. The Clerk directed the process to him as Coroner ; he executed the writ ■ as such. If, then, he was Coroner de facto, the process was good and the service was good, whether he was Coroner jure or not. It may be, that under the law authorizing the. -old Coroner to act until his successor was qualified, he was. Coroner de jure. But whether this he or not, the showing, was insufficient to continue the case.