reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
GA Code § 9-3-74 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 4 - Limitations for Malpractice Actions|§ 9-3-74. Barred Actions Not Revived

 No action for medical malpractice which, prior to July 1, 1976, has been barred by the provisions of this chapter relating to actions shall be revived by this article.   (Code 1933, § 3-1105, enacted by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1363, § 1.)   Law reviews.   - For survey article on torts, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 271 (1982). For comment on statutes of limitations in medical malpractice actions in Georgia, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 377 (1981).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    O.C.G.A. § 9-3-74 means that O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71 is effective beginning July 1, 1976, but that no action will be barred under its terms until July 1, 1977. Allrid v. Emory Univ., 249 Ga. 35, 285 S.E.2d 521 (1982).    In effect, grace period provided in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-74 is not simply one year, but one year plus the number of years which have passed between the date of the alleged wrongful act and the effective date of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71, and thus, the one year grace period provided in § 9-3-74 is reasonable. Allrid v. Emory Univ., 249 Ga. 35, 285 S.E.2d 521 (1982).    Cited in St. Joseph's Hosp. v. Mattair, 239 Ga. 674, 238 S.E.2d 366 (1977); Childers v. Tauber, 148 Ga. App. 157, 250 S.E.2d 787 (1978); Simons v. Conn, 151 Ga. App. 495, 260 S.E.2d 402 (1979); Hart v. Eldridge, 163 Ga. App. 295, 293 S.E.2d 550 (1982).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.   - Malpractice in diagnosis or treatment of tuberculosis, 75 A.L.R.2d 814.
GA Code § 9-3-91 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 5 - Tolling of Limitations|§ 9-3-91. Disabilities Suffered After Accrual of Cause

 If any person suffers a disability specified in Code Section 9-3-90 after his right of action has accrued and the disability is not voluntarily caused or undertaken by the person claiming the benefit thereof, the limitation applicable to his cause of action shall cease to operate during the continuance of the disability.   (Laws 1817, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 567; Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 233, § 20; Code 1863, § 2868; Code 1868, § 2876; Code 1873, § 2927; Code 1882, § 2927; Civil Code 1895, § 3780; Civil Code 1910, § 4375; Code 1933, § 3-802.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 56, 220.   C.J.S.   - 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, §§ 137, 138.   ALR.    - Duress or undue influence as tolling or suspending statute of limitations, 121 A.L.R. 1294.    One wrongfully adjudged or committed as insane as within benefit of provision of statute of limitations allowing time to sue after removal of disability, 166 A.L.R. 960.   Proof of unadjudged incompetency which prevents running of statute of limitations, 9 A.L.R.2d 964.   Time of existence of mental incompetency which will prevent or suspend running of statute of limitations, 41 A.L.R.2d 726.   Appointment of guardian for incompetent or for infant as affecting running of statute of limitations against ward, 86 A.L.R.2d 965.   Effect of infant's marriage after cause of action accrues on running of limitations as against him or her, 91 A.L.R.2d 1272.   Imprisonment of party to civil actions as tolling statute of limitations, 77 A.L.R.3d 735.   Tolling of state statute of limitations in favor of one commencing action despite existing disability, 30 A.L.R.4th 1092.   Effect of appointment of legal representative for person under mental disability on running of state statute of limitations against such person, 111 A.L.R.5th 159.   When is person, other than one claiming posttraumatic stress syndrome or memory repression, within coverage of statutory provision tolling running of limitations period on basis of mental disability, 23 A.L.R.6th 697.
GA Code § 9-3-92 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 5 - Tolling of Limitations|§ 9-3-92. Five-Year Tolling for Unrepresented Estate - in Favor of Estate

 The time between the death of a person and the commencement of representation upon his estate or between the termination of one administration and the commencement of another shall not be counted against his estate in calculating any limitation applicable to the bringing of an action, provided that such time shall not exceed five years. At the expiration of the five years the limitation shall commence, even if the cause of action accrued after the person's death.   (Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 235, §§ 21, 40; Code 1863, § 2869; Code 1868, § 2877; Code 1873, § 2928; Code 1882, § 2928; Civil Code 1895, § 3781; Civil Code 1910, § 4376; Code 1933, § 3-803.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, § 241, 242.   ALR.    - Statutes of limitations or laches as bar to suit by heirs or next of kin to set aside conveyance or transfer by ancestor, 2 A.L.R. 447.    Suspension of contestable period of incontestable clause of life insurance policy pending appointment of personal representative of insured or of beneficiary, 157 A.L.R. 1204.   Running of statute of limitations as affected by doctrine of relation back of appointment of administrator, 3 A.L.R.3d 1234.   Statute of limitations: effect of delay in appointing administrator or other representative on cause of action accruing at or after death of person in whose favor it would have accrued, 28 A.L.R.3d 1141.   Tolling or interruption of running of statute of limitations pending appointment of executor or administrator for tort-feasor in personal injury or death action, 47 A.L.R.3d 179.   Claims for expenses of last sickness or for funeral expenses as within contemplation of statute requiring presentation of claims against decedent's estate, or limiting time for bringing action thereon, 17 A.L.R.4th 530.
GA Code § 9-3-93 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 5 - Tolling of Limitations|§ 9-3-93. Five-Year Tolling for Unrepresented Estate - in Favor of Creditors

 The time between the death of a person and the commencement of representation upon his estate or between the termination of one administration and the commencement of another shall not be counted against creditors of his estate, provided that such time does not exceed five years. At the expiration of the five years the limitation shall commence.   (Ga. L. 1882-83, p. 104, § 1; Civil Code 1895, § 3782; Civil Code 1910, § 4377; Code 1933, § 3-804.)   Law reviews.   - For survey article on torts, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 271 (1982).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    O.C.G.A. § 9-3-93 is made applicable to tort actions by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-98. Jefferson Pilot Fire & Cas. Co. v. Burger, 176 Ga. App. 471, 336 S.E.2d 591 (1985).    Five year period of Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess, p. 342, §§ 1 and 2 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-2-60), relating to dismissals for want of prosecution, was not a limitation within the meaning of former Code 1933, § 3-804 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-93). Swint v. Smith, 219 Ga. 532, 134 S.E.2d 595 (1964).    Partnership claim filed nine years after death of first partner was barred under this section. Roach v. Roach, 143 Ga. 486, 85 S.E. 703 (1915).    Cited in Walker v. Hall, 176 Ga. 12, 166 S.E. 757 (1932); Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Mize, 56 Ga. App. 327, 192 S.E. 527 (1937); Collier v. Georgia Sec. Co., 57 Ga. App. 485, 195 S.E. 920 (1938); Montaquila v. Cranford, 129 Ga. App. 787, 201 S.E.2d 335 (1973); Atlanta Professional Ass'n for Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery v. Allen, 163 Ga. App. 400, 294 S.E.2d 647 (1982); Deller v. Smith, 250 Ga. 157, 296 S.E.2d 49 (1982).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 241, 242.   ALR.    - Effect of statement of claim against decedent's estate regarding debt apparently barred by the statute of limitations, 119 A.L.R. 426.    Application and limits of rule that death of person liable does not interrupt running of statute of limitations, 174 A.L.R. 1423.   Tolling or interruption of running of statute of limitations pending appointment of executor or administrator for tort-feasor in personal injury or death action, 47 A.L.R.3d 179.
GA Code § 9-3-94 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 5 - Tolling of Limitations|§ 9-3-94. Removal of Defendant From State

 Unless otherwise provided by law, if a defendant removes from this state, the time of his absence from the state until he returns to reside shall not be counted or estimated in his favor.   (Laws 1805, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 564; Laws 1806, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 565; Laws 1817, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 567; Laws 1839, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 568; Ga. L. 1851-52, p. 239, § 1; Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 233, § 23; Code 1863, § 2870; Code 1868, § 2878; Code 1873, § 2929; Code 1882, § 2929; Civil Code 1895, § 3783; Civil Code 1910, § 4378; Code 1933, § 3-805.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, § 190 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, §§ 271, 301.   ALR.    - Provision in statute of limitations as to absence from state as applied to a nonresident individual who has an office or place of business in the state, 61 A.L.R. 391.    Provision suspending limitations while defendant is a nonresident or without the state as affected by nonresidence of party asserting cause of action, 83 A.L.R. 271.    Nonresidence or absence of defendant from state as suspending or tolling statute of limitations, where relief is sought, or could have been sought, by an action or proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, 119 A.L.R. 331.    Withdrawal of foreign corporation from state as tolling statute of limitations as to action against corporation, 133 A.L.R. 774.    Provision of statute of limitation excluding period of absence of debtor or defendant from state as applicable to action on liability or cause of action accruing out of state, 148 A.L.R. 732.    Right to enter judgment by confession as affecting suspension of statute of limitations during absence of debtor from state, 172 A.L.R. 997.   Provision of statute of limitations excluding period of defendant's absence from the state as applicable to a local cause of action against individual who was a nonresident when the same arose, 17 A.L.R.2d 502.   Absence of judgment debtor from state as suspending or tolling running of period of limitations as to judgment, 27 A.L.R.2d 839.   Tolling of statute of limitations during absence from state as affected by fact that party claiming benefit of limitations remained subject to service during absence or nonresidence, 55 A.L.R.3d 1158.   What constitutes "fleeing from justice" within meaning of 18 USCA § 3290 which provides that no statute of limitations shall extend to persons fleeing from justice, 148 A.L.R. Fed. 573.
GA Code § 9-3-95 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 5 - Tolling of Limitations|§ 9-3-95. Disability of One or More With Joint Right of Action; Effect of Severability

 Where there is a joint right of action and one or more of the persons having the right is under any of the disabilities specified in Code Section 9-3-90, the terms of limitation shall not be computed against the joint action until all the disabilities are removed. However, if the action is severable so that each person may bring an action for his own share, those free from disability shall be barred after the running of the applicable statute of limitations, and only the rights of those under disability shall be protected.   (Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 233, § 24; Code 1863, § 2871; Code 1868, § 2879; Code 1873, § 2930; Code 1882, § 2930; Civil Code 1895, § 3784; Civil Code 1910, § 4379; Code 1933, § 3-806.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   C.J.S.   - 54 C.J.S., Limitation of Actions, § 135 et seq.
GA Code § 9-3-98 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 5 - Tolling of Limitations|§ 9-3-98. Applicability of Article

 This article shall apply to tort actions as well as actions on contracts.   (Orig. Code 1863, § 2993; Code 1868, § 3006; Code 1873, § 3061; Code 1882, § 3061; Civil Code 1895, § 3901; Civil Code 1910, § 4498; Code 1933, § 3-1005.)   Law reviews.   - For article, "A Comprehensive Analysis of Georgia RICO," see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 537 (1993).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    Former Code 1933, § 3-801 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-98) was made applicable to tort actions by former Code 1933, § 3-1005 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-98). City of Atlanta v. Barrett, 102 Ga. App. 469, 116 S.E.2d 654 (1960); Lowe v. Pue, 150 Ga. App. 234, 257 S.E.2d 209 (1979).    New promise will not constitute a new period from which limitations of a tort action will run. Goodwyn v. Goodwyn, 16 Ga. 114 (1854).    Cited in City of Barnesville v. Powell, 124 Ga. App. 132, 183 S.E.2d 55 (1971); Railey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 129 Ga. App. 875, 201 S.E.2d 628 (1973); Barnum v. Martin, 135 Ga. App. 712, 219 S.E.2d 341 (1975); Benning Constr. Co. v. Lakeshore Plaza Enters., Inc., 240 Ga. 426, 241 S.E.2d 184 (1977); Keith v. McLanahan, 147 Ga. App. 342, 249 S.E.2d 128 (1978); Ward v. Griffith, 162 Ga. App. 194, 290 S.E.2d 290 (1982); Dunn v. Towle, 170 Ga. App. 487, 317 S.E.2d 266 (1984); Morgan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 700 F. Supp. 1574 (N.D. Ga. 1988); DeKalb Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Hawkins, 288 Ga. App. 840, 655 S.E.2d 823 (2007).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   C.J.S.   - 54 C.J.S., Limitation of Actions, §§ 96 et seq., 193 et seq.   ALR.   - Appointment of guardian for incompetent or for infant as affecting running of statute of limitations against ward, 86 A.L.R.2d 965.   Attorney's mistake or neglect as excuse for failing to file timely notice of tort claim against state or local governmental unit, 55 A.L.R.3d 930.
GA Code § 9-3-111 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 6 - Revival|§ 9-3-111. Written Promise Following Discharge in Bankruptcy

 No promise made after discharge in bankruptcy to pay a debt provable in bankruptcy from the liability of which the debtor has been discharged shall be valid or binding upon the debtor or promisor unless the same is made in writing and signed by the party making the same or to be charged therewith, or by someone duly authorized by him.   (Ga. L. 1905, p. 101, § 1; Civil Code 1910, § 4384; Code 1933, § 3-902.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 319, 325 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, § 308.   ALR.    - What amounts to promise to pay which will avoid effect of discharge in bankruptcy, 75 A.L.R. 580.    Effect of subsequent acceptance of note or other contractual obligation in payment, or as evidence, of claim not otherwise barred by discharge in bankruptcy, 145 A.L.R. 1238.    Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute modifying or limiting effect of acknowledgment, payment, or other conditions to toll or extend the period of limitation with respect to mortgage foreclosure, 150 A.L.R. 134.
GA Code § 9-3-113 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 6 - Revival|§ 9-3-113. Effect of New Promise

 A new promise shall revive or extend the original liability; it shall not create a new one.   (Orig. Code 1863, § 2877; Code 1868, § 2885; Code 1873, § 2936; Code 1882, § 2936; Civil Code 1895, § 3790; Civil Code 1910, § 4386; Code 1933, § 3-904.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, § 301 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 54 C.J.S., Limitation of Actions, §§ 305 et seq., 342, 344, 373.   ALR.    - Revival of debt barred by statute of limitations by realization on security deposited as collateral, 10 A.L.R. 838.    Acknowledgment, new promise, or payment by principal as tolling statute of limitations as against guarantor, 84 A.L.R. 729.    Payment, acknowledgment, or new promise by mortgagor as tolling statute of limitations as against grantee of mortgaged premises, 101 A.L.R. 337.    Restatement of fraudulent statements or reassurance of truth of original statements after other party had actual or constructive knowledge of their falsity as excusing latter's delay in bringing action or asserting counterclaim based thereon, 107 A.L.R. 589.    Bank's application of deposit or right to apply deposit against indebtedness as tolling statute of limitations as regards balance of indebtedness, 107 A.L.R. 1527.    Promise by holder of obligation to extend time for payment or not to press for payment as tolling statute of limitations, 120 A.L.R. 765.    Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute modifying or limiting effect of acknowledgment, payment, or other conditions to toll or extend the period of limitation with respect to mortgage foreclosure, 150 A.L.R. 134.   Insurer's admission of liability, offers of settlement, negotiations, and the like, as waiver of, or estoppel to assert, contractual limitation provision, 29 A.L.R.2d 636.   Payment by obligor on note or other instrument containing warrant of attorney to confess judgment as extending time within which power to confess may be exercised, 35 A.L.R.2d 1452.
GA Code § 9-3-114 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 6 - Revival|§ 9-3-114. Whom New Promise by Joint Contractor Binds

 In cases of joint or joint and several contracts, a new promise by one of the contractors shall operate only against the promisor.   (Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 233, § 27; Code 1863, § 2879; Code 1868, § 2887; Code 1873, § 2938; Code 1882, § 2938; Civil Code 1895, § 3792; Civil Code 1910, § 4388; Code 1933, § 3-906.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 334, 338, 363, 365.   C.J.S.   - 54 C.J.S., Limitation of Actions, § 305 et seq.   ALR.    - Acknowledgment or payment effective to toll statute against corporation on obligation upon which it is bound as a co-obligor with a corporate officer as supporting an inference of acknowledgment which will toll statute as against latter, or vice versa, 144 A.L.R. 1019.
GA Code § 9-3-115 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 3 - Limitations of Actions|Article 6 - Revival|§ 9-3-115. Effect of New Promise by Partner

 After the dissolution of a partnership, a new promise by one partner shall revive or extend a partnership debt only as to the promisor and not as to his copartner or copartners.   (Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 233, § 26; Code 1863, § 2878; Code 1868, § 2886; Code 1873, § 2937; Code 1882, § 2937; Civil Code 1895, § 3791; Civil Code 1910, § 4387; Code 1933, § 3-905.)   Cross references.   - Effect of dissolution of partnership on existing liability of partners, § 14-8-36.   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    Petition in action against members of partnership dissolved by discharge in bankruptcy was demurrable (subject to motion to dismiss) when new promise was made by one partner only. Meinhard, Schaul & Co. v. Folsom Bros., 3 Ga. App. 251, 59 S.E. 830 (1907).    Amendment setting forth a new promise by an individual partner, in an action against a partnership, is not germane to original action. Ford v. Clark, 72 Ga. 760 (1884).    Cited in Stone v. Chamberlin & Bancroft, 20 Ga. 259 (1856); First Nat'l Bank v. Ellis, 68 Ga. 192 (1881); Louderback, Gilbert & Co. v. Lilly & Wood, 75 Ga. 855 (1885); First Nat'l Bank v. Cody, 93 Ga. 127, 19 S.E. 831 (1894); Stapler v. Anderson, 177 Ga. 434, 170 S.E. 498 (1933).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 334, 338, 363, 365.   19 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Partnership, § 133.   C.J.S.   - 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, §§ 305 et seq., 317 et seq.   ALR.    - Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute modifying or limiting effect of acknowledgment, payment, or other conditions to toll or extend the period of limitation with respect to mortgage foreclosure, 150 A.L.R. 134.
GA Code § 9-6-1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 6 - Extraordinary Writs|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 9-6-1. Final Judgment Prerequisite to Appeal; Grant of New Trial Subject to Review

 No appeal as to any ruling or decision in a mandamus or quo warranto proceeding or in a case involving a writ of prohibition may be taken until there has been a final judgment in the trial court. The grant of a new trial shall be treated as a final judgment in these cases and subject to review as in other cases.   (Ga. L. 1882-83, p. 103, § 3; Civil Code 1895, § 4874; Civil Code 1910, § 5447; Code 1933, § 64-110; Ga. L. 1946, p. 726, § 1; Ga. L. 2016, p. 865, § 3-4/HB 927.)    The 2016 amendment,  effective January 1, 2017, deleted "to the Supreme Court" following "may be taken" in the middle of the first sentence. See Editor's notes for applicability.   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 2016, p. 865, § 1-1/HB 927, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2016.'"   Ga. L. 2016, p. 865, § 6-1/HB 927, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that: "Part III of this Act shall become effective on January 1, 2017, and shall apply to cases in which a notice of appeal or application to appeal is filed on or after such date."   Law reviews.   - For article on the 2016 amendment of this Code section, see 33 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 205 (2016).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    This section does not affect right to file and prosecute motion for new trial in a mandamus case, and does not limit the time within which such a motion must be disposed of. City of Macon v. Herrington, 198 Ga. 576, 32 S.E.2d 517 (1944) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-6-1).   Final judgment on prayer for mandamus prerequisite to appeal.    - Order overruling demurrers (now motions to dismiss), to petition for mandamus and for injunctive relief cannot be reviewed by Supreme Court until there has been a final judgment on the prayer for a mandamus absolute. Walker v. McKenzie, 209 Ga. 653, 74 S.E.2d 870, later appeal, 210 Ga. 189, 78 S.E.2d 486 (1953).   Direct appeal of denial of application in nature of quo warranto.    - The law authorizes a direct appeal to a judgment denying an application to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto. Walker v. Hamilton, 209 Ga. 735, 76 S.E.2d 12 (1953).    Cited in City of Dalton v. Smith, 158 Ga. App. 356, 280 S.E.2d 138 (1981).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   17 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Mandamus, § 136. 18B Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, New Trial, § 1.   ALR.   - Consideration of obligor's personal-injury recovery or settlement in fixing alimony or child support, 59 A.L.R.5th 489.
GA Code § 9-6-22 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 6 - Extraordinary Writs|Article 2 - Mandamus|§ 9-6-22. Enforcement of Officer's Duties Under Title 5

 If any sheriff, clerk, or other officer fails to discharge any duty required of him by any provision of Title 5, upon petition the appellate court or the superior, state, or city court, as the case may be, may compel the performance of such duty by mandamus. No party shall lose any right by reason of the failure of the officer to discharge his duties when the party has been guilty of no fault himself and has exercised ordinary diligence to secure the discharge of such duties.   (Laws 1845, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 450; Code 1863, § 4172; Code 1868, § 4204; Code 1873, § 4264; Code 1882, § 4264; Civil Code 1895, § 5555; Civil Code 1910, § 6169; Code 1933, § 6-918.)
GA Code § 9-6-23 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 6 - Extraordinary Writs|Article 2 - Mandamus|§ 9-6-23. Enforcement of Corporation's Public Duty

 A private person may by mandamus enforce the performance by a corporation of a public duty as to matters in which he has a special interest.   (Civil Code 1895, § 4869; Civil Code 1910, § 5442; Code 1933, § 64-103.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 52 Am. Jur. 2d, Mandamus, § 43.   C.J.S.   - 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, § 228 et seq.