Court Opinion

ID: 9574927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:09:40.865902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:26.173768
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully with all that is set forth in the majority opinion except that which appears on the last page. The implication might arise therefrom that one who has notice or knowledge of a suit may have some duty or obligation to appear and defend even though he has not been served with the summons and complaint. Three cases are cited but none holds that a defendant has any duty to defend unless he has been served. To the contrary it has been held that a defendant may have full knowledge that a suit has been filed against him — may even be in the courtroom when the case is being tried — and yet he has no duty to defend unless he has been served with summons and complaint. See First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Kunes, 128 Ga. App. 565 (4) (197 SE2d 446). It has even been held that one who is served, and who is named in the complaint, but is not named in the process is not bound to answer. Frank Adam Elec. Co. v. Witman, 16 Ga. App. 574 (2) (85 SE 819); John Holland Gold Pen Co. v. Williams & Co., 7 Ga. App. 173, 174 (66 SE 540).
The majority opinion does not clearly set forth anything contrary to what is written above, but, I repeat, the implication here inveighed against might arise therefrom.