Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co. v. Hammack

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co. v. Hammack

92 S.E. 965, 20 Ga. App. 278, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 863

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1917

Docket8271

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E. 965 (Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co. v. Hammack) 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

Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co. v. Hammack, 92 S.E. 965, 20 Ga. App. 278, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 863 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

Bishop-Babcock-Becker Company sued out an attachment against William F. Mims and George F. White as nonresidents, and had summons of garnishment served on W. F. Ham-mack. Hammack filed his answer to the garnishment, and to this answer the plaintiffs filed a demurrer and a traverse. The demurrer was overruled and the question raised by the traverse was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. In the brief of plaintiffs in error they abandoned all questions except that raised by the traverse of the answer to the garnishment. The issues of fact raised by the traverse were submitted to the judge without the intervention of a jury, and the evidence, as shown by the agreed statement of facts, authorized the judgment rendered.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

Bishop-Babcock-Becker Company sued out an attachment against William F. Mims and George F. White as nonresidents, and had summons of garnishment served on W. F. Ham-mack. Hammack filed his answer to the garnishment, and to this answer the plaintiffs filed a demurrer and a traverse. The demurrer was overruled and the question raised by the traverse was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. In the brief of plaintiffs in error they abandoned all questions except that raised by the traverse of the answer to the garnishment. The issues of fact raised by the traverse were submitted to the judge without the intervention of a jury, and the evidence, as shown by the agreed statement of facts, authorized the judgment rendered.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 965, 20 Ga. App. 278, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-babcock-becker-co-v-hammack-gactapp-1917.