Case ID: ga_73/html/0811-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blandford, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wactor vs. Saulsbury, Respess & Company.
    A bill for specific performance must be brought in some county in which one or more of the defendants may reside, if they are residents of the state. Where it appeared that such a bill was brought in a county in which none of the defendants resided, though all of them were residents of the state, it was properly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
    Judgment affirmed.
    January 21, 1885.
   Blandford, Justice.

[Wactor filed his bill against Saulsbury, Respess & Company, and Pope, sheriff of Taylor county, to enforce a specific performance of an agreement on the part of the firm to re-convey to him certain land, which he had conveyed to them as security for a debt. He alleged that the debt had been paid, or, if not paid in full, that be had tendered any balance due. The bill also prayed for an injunction to prevent the enforcement of a writ of possession which had issued for the land in their favor and rvas in the hands of the sheriff. It was alleged that one member of the firm had died ; another was living in Upson or Pike county; and that the residence of the other was unknown.

No service of the bill appears in the record; but on a demurrer by Saulsbury, Respess & Company, the bill was dismissed, one ground being want of jurisdiction in Taylor county. To this ruling plaintiff excepted.]