Cutter v. Central Bank & Trust Corp.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cutter v. Central Bank & Trust Corp.

95 S.E. 285, 147 Ga. 754, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 137

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 12, 1918

DocketNo. 553

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 285 (Cutter v. Central Bank & Trust Corp.) 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.

Bluebook

Cutter v. Central Bank & Trust Corp., 95 S.E. 285, 147 Ga. 754, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 137 (Ga. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

In the present case a separate summons of garnishment was served on each of the defendants in error. Each garnishee filed a separate answer. A separate traverse of the answer of each was filed, one being a statutory traverse, and the other being in the nature of an equitable traverse. The issues were tried together; the court directed a verdict in favor of each of the garnishees, and separate verdicts and judgments were entered. The plaintiff filed one motion for new trial, alleging error in both verdicts and judgments. The motion was overruled; and the plaintiff filed a single bill of exceptions, making both garnishees parties thereto. Held, that the motion to dismiss the writ of error, based upon the foregoing facts, is meritorious and must be sustained. See Pupke v. Meador, 72 Ga. 230; Western Assurance Co. v. Way, 98 Ga. 746 (27 S. E. 167) ; Walker v. Conn, 112 Ga. 314 (37 S. E. 403); Brown v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., Center v. Pickett Paper Co., 117 Ga. 222 (43 S. E. 498); Cole v. Stanley, 118 Ga. 259 (45 S. E. 282).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Pish, O. J., absent.

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

George, J.

In the present case a separate summons of garnishment was served on each of the defendants in error. Each garnishee filed a separate answer. A separate traverse of the answer of each was filed, one being a statutory traverse, and the other being in the nature of an equitable traverse. The issues were tried together; the court directed a verdict in favor of each of the garnishees, and separate verdicts and judgments were entered. The plaintiff filed one motion for new trial, alleging error in both verdicts and judgments. The motion was overruled; and the plaintiff filed a single bill of exceptions, making both garnishees parties thereto. Held, that the motion to dismiss the writ of error, based upon the foregoing facts, is meritorious and must be sustained. See Pupke v. Meador, 72 Ga. 230; Western Assurance Co. v. Way, 98 Ga. 746 (27 S. E. 167) ; Walker v. Conn, 112 Ga. 314 (37 S. E. 403); Brown v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., Center v. Pickett Paper Co., 117 Ga. 222 (43 S. E. 498); Cole v. Stanley, 118 Ga. 259 (45 S. E. 282).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Pish, O. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 285, 147 Ga. 754, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutter-v-central-bank-trust-corp-ga-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack