Deaton v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Deaton v. Johnson

34 S.E.2d 560, 72 Ga. App. 573, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 643

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1945

Docket30891.

StatusPublished

This text of 34 S.E.2d 560 (Deaton v. Johnson) 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

Deaton v. Johnson, 34 S.E.2d 560, 72 Ga. App. 573, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 643 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

The first headnote needs no comment.

(a) Mrs. Johnson was not in default in the payment of rent since she paid the same into court under the garnishment summons. The contention of the plaintiff in error that the garnishment proceeding under which the defendant in error was served was void for the reason that the affidavit, and bond-were executed in Fulton County, whereas the garnishment process was issued in Haralson County, the county of the garnishee’s residence, is without merit. See Stalvey v. Varn Motors Finance Co., 56 Ga. App. 696 (193 S. E. 627), citing Cox v. Felder, 36 Ga. 597, where it is said: “An officer of one county may issue an attachment returnable to the courts of another.” Certainly if an officer of one county may go so far as to issue an attachment returnable to the courts of another county, an officer of a county other than that of the *574 residence of the garnishee may tdlce affidavit md bond where the garnishment is issued in the county of the garnishee’s residence.

(b) All that is required to constitute a valid bond is that there be a substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute. The bond of the plaintiff in the main case which led to the garnishment proceedings meets this requirement. The paragraph of the bond of which the plaintiff in error in this case complains states: “Now should the said plaintiff pay to the said defendant all costs and damages that may be sustained by the said defendant in consequence of suing out said garnishment, in the event that plaintiff fail to recover in said suit; or in the,event of the amount sworn to be due on said judgment is not due; and [italics by the eourt] in the event that the property or money sought to he garnished is not subject to garnishment process, then this bond is void.” This paragraph indicates that it is not the intent of the signers of the bond that it be in the conjunctive as the conditions under which the bond shall be void are distinctly enumerated by being set off by semicolons.

The court correctly directed a verdict for the defendant, and overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.

The first headnote needs no comment.

(a) Mrs. Johnson was not in default in the payment of rent since she paid the same into court under the garnishment summons. The contention of the plaintiff in error that the garnishment proceeding under which the defendant in error was served was void for the reason that the affidavit, and bond-were executed in Fulton County, whereas the garnishment process was issued in Haralson County, the county of the garnishee’s residence, is without merit. See Stalvey v. Varn Motors Finance Co., 56 Ga. App. 696 (193 S. E. 627), citing Cox v. Felder, 36 Ga. 597, where it is said: “An officer of one county may issue an attachment returnable to the courts of another.” Certainly if an officer of one county may go so far as to issue an attachment returnable to the courts of another county, an officer of a county other than that of the *574 residence of the garnishee may tdlce affidavit md bond where the garnishment is issued in the county of the garnishee’s residence.

(b) All that is required to constitute a valid bond is that there be a substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute. The bond of the plaintiff in the main case which led to the garnishment proceedings meets this requirement. The paragraph of the bond of which the plaintiff in error in this case complains states: “Now should the said plaintiff pay to the said defendant all costs and damages that may be sustained by the said defendant in consequence of suing out said garnishment, in the event that plaintiff fail to recover in said suit; or in the,event of the amount sworn to be due on said judgment is not due; and [italics by the eourt] in the event that the property or money sought to he garnished is not subject to garnishment process, then this bond is void.” This paragraph indicates that it is not the intent of the signers of the bond that it be in the conjunctive as the conditions under which the bond shall be void are distinctly enumerated by being set off by semicolons.

The court correctly directed a verdict for the defendant, and overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 S.E.2d 560, 72 Ga. App. 573, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deaton-v-johnson-gactapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack