Case Name: Chambers, Jeffers & Co. plaintiffs in error, vs. Sloan, Hawkins & Co. defendants in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1855-09
Citations: 19 Ga. 84
Docket Number: No. 17
Parties: Chambers, Jeffers & Co. plaintiffs in error, vs. Sloan, Hawkins & Co. defendants in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
No. 17.
Chambers, Jeffers & Co. plaintiffs in error, vs. Sloan, Hawkins & Co. defendants in error.
[1.] In. an attachment, the affidavit was, that C J & W, partners, using the name of C J & Co. were indebted, &c. and that the said C J & Co. reside out of this State, &c.: Meld, that the affidavit was sufficiently certain.
Attachment, in Eioyd Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe, June Term, 1855.
The affidavit, to obtain an attachment in this case, stated, -il that James S. Chambers, Henry L. Jeffers & John B. Wynn, merchants and partners, trading under and using the name and style of Chambers, Jeffers & Co. are justly indebted to deponent in the sum of $5.460,besides interest; . and that the said Chambers, Jeffers & Co. reside out of this State, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served ■upon them.”
A motion was made to dismiss the attachment, because the affidavit did not state that the individuals constituting the firm of Chambers, Jeffers & Co. resided out of this State.
The Court over-ruled the motion, and this ^decision is assigned as error.
Printup, for plaintiff in error.
T. W. Alexander, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Benning, J.
delivering the opinion.
A partnership is two or more persons who occupy towards each other the relation of partners. It is not a being distinct from the members, which compose it. In this respect, a partnership differs from a corporation. When, therefore, a partnership is spoken of by its partnership name, and said to reside or not to reside in any place, the meaning, it is to be presumed, is that the members composing the partnership, reside or do not reside in the place.
If so, the affidavit in this case was sufficiently certain; and ithe Court below was right in holding that it was.