Bank of Manchester v. Universal Credit Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bank of Manchester v. Universal Credit Co.

164 S.E. 95, 45 Ga. App. 233, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 253

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 30, 1932

Docket22141

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 95 (Bank of Manchester v. Universal Credit Co.) 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

Bank of Manchester v. Universal Credit Co., 164 S.E. 95, 45 Ga. App. 233, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 253 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles,. C. J.

Where property is levied on by virtue of an attachment, and is claimed by one not a party to the -attachment, the only issue on the trial of the case is, who has the title to the property, the claimant or the defendant in attachment? Cecil v. Gazan, 71 Ga. 631; Parham v. Potts-Thompson Co., 127 Ga. 303 (3) (56 S. E. 460); Civil Code (1910), § 5115; 6 C. J. 391, par. 884.

(a) Of course, a claimant may move to dismiss the levy where it appears upon the face of the record that the attachment was void (Gazan v. Royce, 78 Ga. 512(1) ), but he has no right to traverse the grounds of the attachment, only the defendant in attachment having that right. Civil Code (1910), § 5106. See also, in this connection, Strickland v. Jones, 131 Ga. 409 (6) (62 S. E. 322); Horne v. Powell, 88 Ga. 637 (15 S. E. 688). Under the foregoing rulings and the facts of the instant case, the court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the traverse filed by the claimant, and that error rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bboyles,. C. J.

Where property is levied on by virtue of an attachment, and is claimed by one not a party to the -attachment, the only issue on the trial of the case is, who has the title to the property, the claimant or the defendant in attachment? Cecil v. Gazan, 71 Ga. 631; Parham v. Potts-Thompson Co., 127 Ga. 303 (3) (56 S. E. 460); Civil Code (1910), § 5115; 6 C. J. 391, par. 884.

(a) Of course, a claimant may move to dismiss the levy where it appears upon the face of the record that the attachment was void (Gazan v. Royce, 78 Ga. 512(1) ), but he has no right to traverse the grounds of the attachment, only the defendant in attachment having that right. Civil Code (1910), § 5106. See also, in this connection, Strickland v. Jones, 131 Ga. 409 (6) (62 S. E. 322); Horne v. Powell, 88 Ga. 637 (15 S. E. 688). Under the foregoing rulings and the facts of the instant case, the court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the traverse filed by the claimant, and that error rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 95, 45 Ga. App. 233, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-manchester-v-universal-credit-co-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack