Caruthers v. Sprayberry
This text of 26 Ga. 437 (Caruthers v. Sprayberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
We see no distinction between this case and the case of Neal vs. Rice. (11 Ga. Rep. 297.)
Whenever the Sheriff neglects to levy a fi. fa. until it is too late to make the money for the next Term of the Court to which it is returnable, and an injunction is granted, as in b oth of these cases, which has no merit in it, and on account of which the officer has not been prevented from collecting the fi. fa., there is no great hardship in compelling him to pay [438]*438the money himself. In every such case, he has to rely upon the word of the defendant, whether the injunction be interposed or not. And we can well imagine, that a contrary rule might lead to collusive combinations between the debtor and the Sheriff. At any rate, the point has been decided; and we feel disposed to let it rest, until revised by paramount authority. ,
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
26 Ga. 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruthers-v-sprayberry-ga-1858.