Garrett v. Combs

104 S.E. 251, 25 Ga. App. 274, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 736
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 5, 1920
Docket11131
StatusPublished

This text of 104 S.E. 251 (Garrett v. Combs) 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
Garrett v. Combs, 104 S.E. 251, 25 Ga. App. 274, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 736 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. The exception taken to the refusal of the trial judge to strike the plea of the defendant is controlled hy the ruling made by this court in Southern Express Co. v. Chero-Cola Bot. Co., 24 Ga. App. 189 (100 S. E. 289); s. c. 150 Ga. 430 (104 S. E. 233). Under the facts of this case, which are similar to those there stated, the court did not err in the refusal to strike.

2. Where a fi. fa. is levied on personal property sufficient to pay the debt, and a forthcoming bond with security is given by the defendant in fi. fa., and where upon a claim being filed to the property the plaintiff in fi. fa. withdraws the original fi. fa., pending the claim proceeding, and levies upon additional property of the defendant, and under the second levy another forthcoming bond with new sureties is given, upon a suit brought upon the second bond a verdict in favor of the defendants would he authorized where it appears that upon a suit on the first [275]*275forthcoming bond the plaintiff compromised with the solvent surety thereon by accepting from him a certain sum in satisfaction of all liability on his part. Under such a state of facts the previous levy remains unaccounted for, and, so far as the sureties on the second bond are concerned, amounts to a satisfaction of the fi. fa. Civil Code (1910), §§ 6047, 6048.

Decided May 5, 1920. Adhered to on rehearing, September 17, 1920. Action on bond; from city court of Carrollton — Judge Beall. November 3, 1919. C. E. Roop, Boykin & Boykin, for plaintiff. S. Holderness, Leon Hood, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Chero-Cola Bottling Co. v. Southern Express Co.
104 S.E. 233 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Southern Express Co. v. Chero-Cola Bottling Co.
100 S.E. 289 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 S.E. 251, 25 Ga. App. 274, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-combs-gactapp-1920.