Chance v. Simpkins

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chance v. Simpkins

95 S.E. 739, 22 Ga. App. 148, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 205

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1918

Docket9119

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 739 (Chance v. Simpkins) 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

Chance v. Simpkins, 95 S.E. 739, 22 Ga. App. 148, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 205 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

Where funds have been paid into court under an order requiring their deposit with its clerk to await their final distribution, the funds while so held are in custodia legis, and therefore not subject to the process of garnishment. 20 Cyc. 1022 (1,2). The fact that the parties interested may have consented to the order of court will not alter the rule; nor will the fact that prior to the service of the process of garnishment the right to the funds had been fixed and determined by another judgment providing for their distribution. Cowart v. Caldwell Co., 134 Ga. 544, 548 (68 S. E. 500, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 720); Field v. Jones, 11 Ga. 413. In such a case the status of the clerk, as a bare custodian for the court, is analogous to that of a receiver, who is not subject to the process of garnishment (Civil Code of 1910, § 5485), rather than to the status of a sheriff, who, as a general officer accountable to all, has been held to be subject to the process. Bird v. Harris, 63 Ga. 434, 435.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Jenkins, J.

Where funds have been paid into court under an order requiring their deposit with its clerk to await their final distribution, the funds while so held are in custodia legis, and therefore not subject to the process of garnishment. 20 Cyc. 1022 (1,2). The fact that the parties interested may have consented to the order of court will not alter the rule; nor will the fact that prior to the service of the process of garnishment the right to the funds had been fixed and determined by another judgment providing for their distribution. Cowart v. Caldwell Co., 134 Ga. 544, 548 (68 S. E. 500, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 720); Field v. Jones, 11 Ga. 413. In such a case the status of the clerk, as a bare custodian for the court, is analogous to that of a receiver, who is not subject to the process of garnishment (Civil Code of 1910, § 5485), rather than to the status of a sheriff, who, as a general officer accountable to all, has been held to be subject to the process. Bird v. Harris, 63 Ga. 434, 435.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 739, 22 Ga. App. 148, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chance-v-simpkins-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack