Granite City Bank v. Burt

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Granite City Bank v. Burt

183 S.E. 125, 52 Ga. App. 308, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 151

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 21, 1935

Docket24857

StatusPublished

This text of 183 S.E. 125 (Granite City Bank v. Burt) 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

Granite City Bank v. Burt, 183 S.E. 125, 52 Ga. App. 308, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 151 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

Under the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Pagel v. Pagel, 291 U. S. 473 (78 L. ed. 923), where the death of the designated beneficiary in a war-risk insurance policv occurs prior to the payment to him of all installments as provided by the policy, the remaining installments which become payable to the estate of the insured soldier are not exempt from the claims of creditors of the soldier, and therefore are subject to garnishment by such a creditor. In this decision the court said: '“The language of the statute [U. S. Code, title 38, §§ 454, 511, 514] limits the exemption to ‘any person to whom an award is made.’ It is clear that the statute does not extend the exemption beyond the insured and beneficiary.” This ruling, being the final authority in such a case (White v. Roper, 176 Ga. 180, 185, 167 S. E. 177), is decisive; and any previous decisions by the court of this State which might tend to the contrary must give way to what has been directly held by the ultimate authority. See Payne v. Jordan, 152 Ga. 367 (110 S. E. 4); Hunt v. Stagle, 45 Ga. App. 470, 472 (165 S. E. 287); Earl v. Reynolds, 49 Ga. App. 510 (176 S. E. 91); Tolbert v. Tolbert, 41 Ga. App. 737 (2) (154 S. E. 655). Therefore the court did not err, under the agreed statement of facts, in holding that the insurance funds were subject to the garnishment. .

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., eoneur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

Under the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Pagel v. Pagel, 291 U. S. 473 (78 L. ed. 923), where the death of the designated beneficiary in a war-risk insurance policv occurs prior to the payment to him of all installments as provided by the policy, the remaining installments which become payable to the estate of the insured soldier are not exempt from the claims of creditors of the soldier, and therefore are subject to garnishment by such a creditor. In this decision the court said: '“The language of the statute [U. S. Code, title 38, §§ 454, 511, 514] limits the exemption to ‘any person to whom an award is made.’ It is clear that the statute does not extend the exemption beyond the insured and beneficiary.” This ruling, being the final authority in such a case (White v. Roper, 176 Ga. 180, 185, 167 S. E. 177), is decisive; and any previous decisions by the court of this State which might tend to the contrary must give way to what has been directly held by the ultimate authority. See Payne v. Jordan, 152 Ga. 367 (110 S. E. 4); Hunt v. Stagle, 45 Ga. App. 470, 472 (165 S. E. 287); Earl v. Reynolds, 49 Ga. App. 510 (176 S. E. 91); Tolbert v. Tolbert, 41 Ga. App. 737 (2) (154 S. E. 655). Therefore the court did not err, under the agreed statement of facts, in holding that the insurance funds were subject to the garnishment. .

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.E. 125, 52 Ga. App. 308, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granite-city-bank-v-burt-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack