Grubbs v. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.

200 S.E.2d 335, 129 Ga. App. 595, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1070
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 6, 1973
Docket48378
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 S.E.2d 335 (Grubbs v. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.) 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
Grubbs v. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc., 200 S.E.2d 335, 129 Ga. App. 595, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1070 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

This is a garnishment case. Pursuant to the terms of a contract between the garnishee and defendant debtor, [596]*596the latter was required to deposit funds with the garnishee as security for the payment of newspapers delivered to the defendant debtor, a distributor of the garnishee; that upon the termination of the contract and the satisfaction of all claims against the distributor the security would be refunded to defendant. There was evidence that the garnishee from time to time released portions of the funds deposited as security upon the defendant’s request but that the decision to release any funds from the deposit rested solely within the sound discretion of the garnishee.

Argued July 3, 1973 Decided September 6, 1973. Linus L. Zukas, for appellant. Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Allen Post, Christopher L. Carson, for appellee.

A plaintiff, by way of summons of garnishment, cannot reach funds which the plaintiffs debtor cannot reach. Kingsberry Mortgage Co. v. Ellis, 118 Ga. App. 755 (2) (165 SE2d 604). The trial judge’s finding of fact that the money on deposit was a collateral security and that defendant could not compel the return of the money until after termination of the employment relationship, was authorized by the evidence. The accompanying conclusion of law that the collateral security held by the garnishee could not be subject to garnishment, was correct. The evidence that upon request of the defendant-debtor the garnishee could in its sole discretion release part of the funds on deposit held by the garnishee is immaterial. The judgment of the trial court denying the plaintiffs traverse to the garnishee’s answer must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen and Quillian, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Washington Loan & Banking Co. v. First Fulton Bank & Trust
270 S.E.2d 242 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
200 S.E.2d 335, 129 Ga. App. 595, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grubbs-v-atlanta-newspapers-inc-gactapp-1973.