Falligant v. Blitch

91 S.E. 1057, 19 Ga. App. 675, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 301
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 4, 1917·No. 7999·Published·Cited by 10 cases

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

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

91 S.E. 1057 (Falligant v. Blitch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jenkins v. COMMUNITY LOAN & INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF SAVANNAH
171 S.E.2d 654 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Kazakos v. Soteres
170 S.E.2d 50 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Gruber v. Fulton County
140 S.E.2d 552 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Lancaster v. Neal
154 S.E. 386 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Williams v. Flanders
134 S.E. 183 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Blakely Milling & Trading Co. v. Thompson
128 S.E. 688 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Brach & Sons v. Oglesby Grocery Co.
127 S.E. 157 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Watters & Co. v. O'Neill
108 S.E. 257 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Duke v. Automobile Supply Co.
94 S.E. 915 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)