Norman Sue. Indus, v. Lusty, 168 Ga. App. 164 ( 308 SE2d 411) (1983). See also Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Kennesaw Transp., 168 Ga. App. 701, 702-703 ( 309 SE2d 917) (1983) (recipient of papers said agent unavailable but she would accept service; factual conflict posed by affidavits as to whether recipient had been appointed to accept service was issue of fact to be resolved by trial judge); Cousby v. J. T. Bickers Realty Co., 139 Ga. App. 250, 251 ( 228 SE2d 214) (1976) (standard office practice for front desk employee to accept summons for company president tantamount to president designating front desk person as his agent for service of process). Thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holmes' motion to dismiss for improper service.
We find the enumeration to be without merit. Cousby v. J. T. Bickers Realty, 139 Ga. App. 250 ( 228 S.E.2d 214); Adams v. Upjohn Co., 142 Ga. App. 264, 265-266 ( 235 S.E.2d 584); Cleveland Lumber Co. v. Delta Equities, 232 Ga. 883, 884-885, supra. Judgment affirmed. Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.
She regularly accepted service on the corporation and was knowledgeable of the procedures to be used when service did occur." See Scott v. Atlanta Dairies Co-op., 239 Ga. 721, 723-724 (2) ( 238 S.E.2d 340); Cousby v. J. T. Bickers Realty Co., 139 Ga. App. 250 ( 228 S.E.2d 214). In the case sub judice, the secretary accepted service from the deputy sheriff, delivered the papers to her superior, the administrator, and upon his direction mailed the papers to the corporation's insurer.
Thoni Oil Co. v. Tinsley, 140 Ga. App. 887 (1) ( 232 S.E.2d 162); Citizens Bank of Hapeville v. Alexander-Smith Academy, 226 Ga. 871 ( 178 S.E.2d 178). As to the meaning of "agent" as used in statutes relating to service, see Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Heard, 123 Ga. App. 635 ( 182 S.E.2d 153); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Thornton, 111 Ga. App. 636 ( 142 S.E.2d 422). We note that this court's holding in Cousby v. J. T. Bickers Realty Co., 139 Ga. App. 250 ( 228 S.E.2d 214), upon which appellant places great reliance, does not require a contrary result. In this case, unlike the situation in Cousby, there was no finding by the trial court that the secretary regularly accepted service of process for the corporation as standard office procedure.