Arnold-Forrest Horse & Mule Co. v. Fleeman

71 S.E. 766, 9 Ga. App. 483, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 193
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 29, 1911
Docket3264
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 766 (Arnold-Forrest Horse & Mule Co. v. Fleeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnold-Forrest Horse & Mule Co. v. Fleeman, 71 S.E. 766, 9 Ga. App. 483, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 193 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

Powell, J.

1, An affidavit of illegality can not be used as a substitute for certiorari or other appellate procedure. If the affiant was regularly served with process or voluntarily appeared and pleaded in the. main suit, he can not by his affidavit of illegality assail the judgment because of mere errors of law which took place on the trial.

2. A garnishee was served, and answered, denying indebtedness. The answer was traversed. The plaintiff served upon the garnishee notice to produce certain books and papers at the trial. Because of an alleged failure of the garnishee to produce the books and papers, the court entered judgment against the garnishee as if by default. Held: Any error on the part of the court as to his right to enter judgment against the garnishee for failure to produce the books was a mere error of law, affecting the correctness of the trial, but not rendering the judgment a nullity; and this is true irrespective of whether the notice to produce, the disobedience to which afforded the alleged reason for the . rendering of the judgment of the justice, was ever legally served or not. [484]*484An error of the character indicated must be corrected by certiorari or other appellate procedure, and can not be reached by affidavit of illegality. . Judgment affirmed.

Decided June 29, 1911. Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis. January 9, 1911. Morris Machs, F. M. Hughes, for plaintiff in error. Horton -Brothers & Burress, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Drake v. Ludden & Bates Southern Music House
169 S.E. 213 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Anderson v. Trowbridge Hardware Co.
138 S.E. 250 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Slaton v. Hinman
100 S.E. 24 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 S.E. 766, 9 Ga. App. 483, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-forrest-horse-mule-co-v-fleeman-gactapp-1911.