Barnett v. Findley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Barnett v. Findley

162 S.E. 288, 44 Ga. App. 610, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 421

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 18, 1932

Docket21644

StatusPublished

This text of 162 S.E. 288 (Barnett v. Findley) 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

Barnett v. Findley, 162 S.E. 288, 44 Ga. App. 610, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 421 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. The averment in the instant affidavit to obtain an attachment, that the defendant was “about to remove from the limits of said county,” could not rationally be construed to have any other meaning than that the affiant intended to aver, and did aver, that the defendant had subjected himself to the process of attachment under the Civil Code (1910), § 5055, in that he was “actually removing, or about to remove, without the limits of the county.” Accordingly, the court did not err in overruling the motion to. dismiss the attachment..

2. On the issue made by the traverse to the grounds ,of attachment, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. The averment in the instant affidavit to obtain an attachment, that the defendant was “about to remove from the limits of said county,” could not rationally be construed to have any other meaning than that the affiant intended to aver, and did aver, that the defendant had subjected himself to the process of attachment under the Civil Code (1910), § 5055, in that he was “actually removing, or about to remove, without the limits of the county.” Accordingly, the court did not err in overruling the motion to. dismiss the attachment..

2. On the issue made by the traverse to the grounds ,of attachment, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E. 288, 44 Ga. App. 610, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-findley-gactapp-1932.