Giddens v. Gaskins

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Giddens v. Gaskins

66 S.E. 560, 7 Ga. App. 221, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 601

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 24, 1909

Docket1893

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 66 S.E. 560 (Giddens v. Gaskins) 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

Giddens v. Gaskins, 66 S.E. 560, 7 Ga. App. 221, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 601 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

I-Inx, O. J.

A laborer’s special lien on personalty was foreclosed in the city court of Nashville under §2S16 of the Civil Code, and the execution issued thereon was levied upon the defendant’s property described in the affidavit of foreclosure. The defendant replevied the propei’ty, but did not make and file the counter-affidavit provided for by paragraph 6 of the above section of the Civil Code. At the next term of the city court succeeding’ the foreclosure proceedings and the filing of the replevy bond, a judgment was rendered against the defendant and his surety on the bond. The execution was levied upon property of the surety, and he filed an affidavit of illegality, attacking the validity of the foreclosure proceedings, on the grounds that the giving of the replevy bond converted those proceedings into mesne process; that the suit was prematurely returned to a term of the court which convened less than fifteen days after the foreclosure proceedings; and that he had no notice of the pendency thereof before judgment was entered against him on the replevy bond. Held: (1) The giving of the replevy bond did mot convert the foreclosure proceedings into mesne process. It required the counter-affidavit to do this; and until such counter-affidavit was made [222]*222and filed, there was no suit or case to return to the court, and no issue to be tried, the execution issued on the foreclosure of the lien being final process. Moultrie Lumber Co. v. Jenkins, 121 Ga. 721 (40 S. E. 678). (2) In the absence of the counter-affidavit, the plaintiff was authorized, under section 2817 of the Civil Code, to enter up judgment on the replevy bond, against the defendant and his surety, in the same manner as in cases of appeal. (3) The foreclosure proceedings were not invalid for any of the particular reasons set forth in the affidavit of illegality, and the court did not err in dismissing the illegality.

Illegality; from city court of Douglas — Judge Roan. May 7, 1909.

Submitted June 28, Decided December 24, 1909. Hendricks & Christian, for plaintiff in error. J. P. Knight, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

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

I-Inx, O. J.

A laborer’s special lien on personalty was foreclosed in the city court of Nashville under §2S16 of the Civil Code, and the execution issued thereon was levied upon the defendant’s property described in the affidavit of foreclosure. The defendant replevied the propei’ty, but did not make and file the counter-affidavit provided for by paragraph 6 of the above section of the Civil Code. At the next term of the city court succeeding’ the foreclosure proceedings and the filing of the replevy bond, a judgment was rendered against the defendant and his surety on the bond. The execution was levied upon property of the surety, and he filed an affidavit of illegality, attacking the validity of the foreclosure proceedings, on the grounds that the giving of the replevy bond converted those proceedings into mesne process; that the suit was prematurely returned to a term of the court which convened less than fifteen days after the foreclosure proceedings; and that he had no notice of the pendency thereof before judgment was entered against him on the replevy bond. Held: (1) The giving of the replevy bond did mot convert the foreclosure proceedings into mesne process. It required the counter-affidavit to do this; and until such counter-affidavit was made [222]*222and filed, there was no suit or case to return to the court, and no issue to be tried, the execution issued on the foreclosure of the lien being final process. Moultrie Lumber Co. v. Jenkins, 121 Ga. 721 (40 S. E. 678). (2) In the absence of the counter-affidavit, the plaintiff was authorized, under section 2817 of the Civil Code, to enter up judgment on the replevy bond, against the defendant and his surety, in the same manner as in cases of appeal. (3) The foreclosure proceedings were not invalid for any of the particular reasons set forth in the affidavit of illegality, and the court did not err in dismissing the illegality.

Illegality; from city court of Douglas — Judge Roan. May 7, 1909.

Submitted June 28, Decided December 24, 1909. Hendricks & Christian, for plaintiff in error. J. P. Knight, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.E. 560, 7 Ga. App. 221, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giddens-v-gaskins-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack