Bowden v. Scott

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bowden v. Scott

99 S.E. 140, 23 Ga. App. 636, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 248

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 19, 1919

Docket10059

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 140 (Bowden v. Scott) 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

Bowden v. Scott, 99 S.E. 140, 23 Ga. App. 636, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

This is a suit on a forthcoming bond given by a claimant in attachment; and to entitle the plaintiff to recover there must have been a breach of the bond. There was no such breach, since there never was a fi. fa. in the attachment ease. Nor was there a judgment or fi. fa. in the claim case. A judgment in attachment can be enforced only by execution. Civil Code (1910), § 5122. See also Rogers v. McDill, 9 Ga. 506. The plaintiff seeks to avoid this result by saying that there was a breach because the property was not produced on demand and was dissipated. This contention is, however, unsound, since he could not make a legal demand or complain of the dissipation of the property, until’legally in position to sell it, and he could not be 'legally in position to sell until he had a fi. fa. See Hatton v. Brown, 1 Ga. App. 747 (2) (57 S. E. 1044); Lassiter v. Byrd, 55 Ga. 606.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

This is a suit on a forthcoming bond given by a claimant in attachment; and to entitle the plaintiff to recover there must have been a breach of the bond. There was no such breach, since there never was a fi. fa. in the attachment ease. Nor was there a judgment or fi. fa. in the claim case. A judgment in attachment can be enforced only by execution. Civil Code (1910), § 5122. See also Rogers v. McDill, 9 Ga. 506. The plaintiff seeks to avoid this result by saying that there was a breach because the property was not produced on demand and was dissipated. This contention is, however, unsound, since he could not make a legal demand or complain of the dissipation of the property, until’legally in position to sell it, and he could not be 'legally in position to sell until he had a fi. fa. See Hatton v. Brown, 1 Ga. App. 747 (2) (57 S. E. 1044); Lassiter v. Byrd, 55 Ga. 606.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 140, 23 Ga. App. 636, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowden-v-scott-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack