Garner v. Hartsfield Loan & Savings Co.
This text of 174 S.E. 647 (Garner v. Hartsfield Loan & Savings Co.) 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.
Opinion
1. Where a discharge in bankruptcy is granted pending a suit commenced in a State court, and the State court, subsequently to the discharge, renders a judgment against the bankrupt, and execution thereon is levied on certain property of the bankrupt, the property, although acquired after his discha/i-ge in ba/nkruptey, is subject to the execution, where the defendant (the bankrupt) in the suit in the State court failed to file a plea setting up his discharge in bankruptcy. In order for the bankrupt “to avail himself of his discharge, he should have -pleaded it in the pending suit. Failing to plead it, the subse[200]*200quent judgment is not affected by such discharge, and is an enforceable lien against any property of the defendant. Finney v. Mayer, 61 Ga. 500.” Crawford v. Bostwick-Goodell Co., 141 Ga. 356 (80 S. E. 1005). The cases cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error are distinguishable by their particular facts from the Crawford case and the instant case.
2. The controlling facts of the Crawford ease, supra, and of this case are identical, and, under the ruling in' the Crawford case, the court in the instant case properly directed a verdict against the affidavit of illegality filed by the bankrupt.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
174 S.E. 647, 49 Ga. App. 199, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garner-v-hartsfield-loan-savings-co-gactapp-1934.