Flegal v. Loveless

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Flegal v. Loveless

90 S.E.2d 606, 93 Ga. App. 41, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 466

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 15, 1955

Docket35843

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 90 S.E.2d 606 (Flegal v. Loveless) 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

Flegal v. Loveless, 90 S.E.2d 606, 93 Ga. App. 41, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 466 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, C. J.

1. Where an attachment proceeding is instituted against a nonresident and the defendant executes a replevy bond under Code § 8-701, the sureties on the bond are bound by the judgment of the court overruling a motion of the defendant, unexcepted to, to dismiss the attachment on the ground that it conclusively appeared on the face [42]*42of the attachment that there was no fact alleged therein which would entitle the plaintiff to the remedy of attachment under the laws of the State of Georgia. (The body of the affidavit contained no ground of attachment.) The sureties are also bound by the rulings of the court allowing amendments to the attachment affidavit and bond, which amendments corrected jurisdictional and other defects in the attachment affidavit and bond, the rulings allowing such amendments being unexcepted to. Ford v. Eskridge, 53 Ga. App. 466 (186 S. E. 204) and cases cited. Especially is this true where the defendant pleaded the merits and participated in the trial of the case. See also Penn & Watson v. McGhee, 6 Ga. App. 631 (65 S. E. 686).

Decided November 15, 1955. Frank M. Gleason, for plaintiff in error. W. A. McClure, Wade Leonard, contra.

2. Where the replevy bond executed by the sureties recited that the property levied on was levied on as the property of the defendant, the sureties are estopped to deny a valid levy. Weeks v. Reliance Fertilizer Co., 23 Ga. App. 128 (1) (97 S. E. 664) and cases cited. Furthermore, the defect in the levy in that it failed to state that the property was levied on as the property of the defendant was amendable and the defect was not a ground for arresting the judgment. McDonald v. Kimball Co., Inc., 144 Ga. 105 (86 S. E. 234).

The court did not err in denying the motion in arrest of judgment made by the sureties on the replevy bond.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, C. J.

1. Where an attachment proceeding is instituted against a nonresident and the defendant executes a replevy bond under Code § 8-701, the sureties on the bond are bound by the judgment of the court overruling a motion of the defendant, unexcepted to, to dismiss the attachment on the ground that it conclusively appeared on the face [42]*42of the attachment that there was no fact alleged therein which would entitle the plaintiff to the remedy of attachment under the laws of the State of Georgia. (The body of the affidavit contained no ground of attachment.) The sureties are also bound by the rulings of the court allowing amendments to the attachment affidavit and bond, which amendments corrected jurisdictional and other defects in the attachment affidavit and bond, the rulings allowing such amendments being unexcepted to. Ford v. Eskridge, 53 Ga. App. 466 (186 S. E. 204) and cases cited. Especially is this true where the defendant pleaded the merits and participated in the trial of the case. See also Penn & Watson v. McGhee, 6 Ga. App. 631 (65 S. E. 686).

Decided November 15, 1955. Frank M. Gleason, for plaintiff in error. W. A. McClure, Wade Leonard, contra.

2. Where the replevy bond executed by the sureties recited that the property levied on was levied on as the property of the defendant, the sureties are estopped to deny a valid levy. Weeks v. Reliance Fertilizer Co., 23 Ga. App. 128 (1) (97 S. E. 664) and cases cited. Furthermore, the defect in the levy in that it failed to state that the property was levied on as the property of the defendant was amendable and the defect was not a ground for arresting the judgment. McDonald v. Kimball Co., Inc., 144 Ga. 105 (86 S. E. 234).

The court did not err in denying the motion in arrest of judgment made by the sureties on the replevy bond.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E.2d 606, 93 Ga. App. 41, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flegal-v-loveless-gactapp-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack