Blakeney v. Franklin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blakeney v. Franklin

105 S.E. 872, 26 Ga. App. 305, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 116

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 15, 1921

Docket11636

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 S.E. 872 (Blakeney v. Franklin) 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

Blakeney v. Franklin, 105 S.E. 872, 26 Ga. App. 305, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 116 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Garnishment, under the Georgia statutes, while ancillary to the main suit to the extent that judgment cannot be rendered against the garnishee until after judgment against the main defendant has been obtained, is nevertheless in itself a distinct suit between the plaintiff and the garnishee, requiring separate and independent process and judgment. Dent v. Dent, 118 Ga. 853 (45 S. E. 680) ; Ahrens v. Patten Co., 94 Ga. 247, 250 (21 S. E. 523); Woods v. Mass. Mills, 17 Ga. App. 422 (87 S. E. 688); Lamb v. Whitman, 17 Ga. App. 687 (87 S. E. 1095) ; Jones v. Maril, 19 Ga. App. 216(1) (91 S. E. 445).

2. Process of garnishment thus being a suit within the intent and meaning of sections 3166 and 3167 of the Civil Code (1910), which provide for suit, entry of judgment, and issue of execution against partners “ in the firm name ” or “ against a firm,” and provide for judgment against the firm binding all the firm assets and the individual property of the partner served, and section 3190 of the Civil Code further providing that the interest of a partner may be reached by process of garnishment served on the firm, a judgment against a named partnership composed of named individuals, in a garnishment proceeding so maintained, was good and binding not only as to the firm assets of the partnership, but as to the individual property of any partner who had been thus served, and an execution following the terms of such judgment was. leviable on the individual property of such a partner. Hollister v. Bluthenthal, 9 Ga. App. 176(1) (70 S. E. 970; Taylor v. Felder, 3 Ga. App. 106 (59 S. E. 398) ; Page v. Citizens Bkg. Co., 111 Ga. 73, 79 [306]*306(36 S. E. 418, 78 Am. St. R. 144, 51 L. R. A. 463, and notes); Parler v. Johnson, 81 Ga. 254 (7 S. E. 317); Ells v. Bone, 71 Ga. 466, 469; Ferry v. Mattox, 2 Ga. App. 104 (58 S. E. 291); Griffin v. Colonial Bank, 7 Ga. App. 126 (66 S. E. 382); Loyd v. Hicks, 31 Ga. 140(3), 142.

Decided February 15, 1921.

Affidavit of illegality; from city court of Valdosta — Judge Cranford. May 21, 1920.

Whitaker & Dukes, for plaintiff in error. Franklin cd Langdale, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bill, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Garnishment, under the Georgia statutes, while ancillary to the main suit to the extent that judgment cannot be rendered against the garnishee until after judgment against the main defendant has been obtained, is nevertheless in itself a distinct suit between the plaintiff and the garnishee, requiring separate and independent process and judgment. Dent v. Dent, 118 Ga. 853 (45 S. E. 680) ; Ahrens v. Patten Co., 94 Ga. 247, 250 (21 S. E. 523); Woods v. Mass. Mills, 17 Ga. App. 422 (87 S. E. 688); Lamb v. Whitman, 17 Ga. App. 687 (87 S. E. 1095) ; Jones v. Maril, 19 Ga. App. 216(1) (91 S. E. 445).

2. Process of garnishment thus being a suit within the intent and meaning of sections 3166 and 3167 of the Civil Code (1910), which provide for suit, entry of judgment, and issue of execution against partners “ in the firm name ” or “ against a firm,” and provide for judgment against the firm binding all the firm assets and the individual property of the partner served, and section 3190 of the Civil Code further providing that the interest of a partner may be reached by process of garnishment served on the firm, a judgment against a named partnership composed of named individuals, in a garnishment proceeding so maintained, was good and binding not only as to the firm assets of the partnership, but as to the individual property of any partner who had been thus served, and an execution following the terms of such judgment was. leviable on the individual property of such a partner. Hollister v. Bluthenthal, 9 Ga. App. 176(1) (70 S. E. 970; Taylor v. Felder, 3 Ga. App. 106 (59 S. E. 398) ; Page v. Citizens Bkg. Co., 111 Ga. 73, 79 [306]*306(36 S. E. 418, 78 Am. St. R. 144, 51 L. R. A. 463, and notes); Parler v. Johnson, 81 Ga. 254 (7 S. E. 317); Ells v. Bone, 71 Ga. 466, 469; Ferry v. Mattox, 2 Ga. App. 104 (58 S. E. 291); Griffin v. Colonial Bank, 7 Ga. App. 126 (66 S. E. 382); Loyd v. Hicks, 31 Ga. 140(3), 142.

Decided February 15, 1921.

Affidavit of illegality; from city court of Valdosta — Judge Cranford. May 21, 1920.

Whitaker & Dukes, for plaintiff in error. Franklin cd Langdale, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.E. 872, 26 Ga. App. 305, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blakeney-v-franklin-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack