Falligant v. Blitch

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Falligant v. Blitch

91 S.E. 1057, 19 Ga. App. 675, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 301

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 4, 1917

Docket7999

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 1057 (Falligant v. Blitch) 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

Falligant v. Blitch, 91 S.E. 1057, 19 Ga. App. 675, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 301 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. “An attachment issued upon an affidavit administered by a clerk of the superior court is absolutely void,” and consequently can not be the basis of a judgment in attachment as against the specific property seized thereunder. Heard v. national Bank of Ill., 114 Ga. 291 (40 S. E. 266); Bruce v. Conyers, 54 Ga. 678.

2. But, though such an attachment be absolutely void, this is no ground for dismissing a declaration thereon, praying- for judgment in personam, where the declaration has been properly filed and the defendant duly cited to appear, and general appearance has been made therein. McAndrew v. Irish Am. Bank, 117 Ga. 510 (43 S. E. 858); Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Pless, 3 Ga. App. 400 (60 S. E. 8).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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