" In Hillyer v. Pearson, 118 Ga. 815 ( 45 S.E. 701) (1903), it was held that where a sheriff was a party to a suit, process directed to the sheriff and his deputies, and served by one of his deputies, was void. The appellee urges that the foregoing cases are no longer applicable because the Civil Practice Act repealed § 81-219 of the Code of 1933, which provided for service when the sheriff was a party.

That decision has no application to the question here, which is the constitutionality of the Act because it authorizes no one to perfect the service by posting, publishing and mailing. Decisions that do control on the constitutional requirement of service are Williams v. Batten, 156 Ga. 620 ( 119 S.E. 709), where it was held that since the law required the clerk to mail a copy of the paper containing the advertisement, no service was had where the clerk had another mail the paper; and Hillyer v. Pearson, 118 Ga. 815, 817 ( 45 S.E. 701), where it is said, "In order for an officer to make legal service he must have authority to do so. This authority in ordinary actions is the process of the court, issued by the clerk and bearing teste in the name of the judge. ... No officer has authority to make service of a void process, and if he does so it amounts to no more than if the service had been made by a private individual.

It was held that the disqualification of the principal disqualified the deputy, and that the writ should have been directed to and served by the coroner. In Hillyer v. Pearson, 118 Ga. 815, [ 45 S.E. 701], the sheriff was a party to the suit. It was declared that where such a disqualification arises it is mandatory that process shall be directed, not to the sheriff or his deputies, but to the coroner, and that where process was directed to the sheriff and his deputies, service of the process was void, even though made by one of the sheriff's deputies.

(Emphasis supplied.) Abrams v. Abrams, 239 Ga. 866, 868 ( 239 S.E.2d 33); Hillyer v. Pearson, 118 Ga. 815, 817 ( 45 S.E. 701); Don Pepe, Inc. v. JMAPCO, Inc., 157 Ga. App. 216 ( 276 S.E.2d 886). The trial court further found that subsequent service of process on the sheriff's department defendants by the coroner was not effective because of laches. Consequently, the trial court granted appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint.

This authority in ordinary actions is the process of the court, issued by the clerk and bearing teste in the name of the judge.' Hillyer v. Pearson, 118 Ga. 817 ( 45 S.E. 701). `No officer has authority to make service of a void process, and if he does so it amounts to no more than if the service had been made by a private individual.' Id. 819. `The defect can not be regarded as a mere irregularity.

Thus, if the sheriff or his deputies are party to the lawsuit, the process then shall be directed to the coroner of the county and to the sheriffs of the adjoining counties and may be served by either, as convenience may suggest. Abrams, 239 S.E.2d at 33; see also Hillyer v. Pearson, 45 S.E. 701, 702-03 (Ga. 1903) (holding that where a sheriff or sheriff's deputy is a party to a suit, process directed to the sheriff and his deputies, wherein it was served by one of sheriff s deputies, is void).