Habersham v. Eppinger & Russell

61 Ga. 199
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 61 Ga. 199 (Habersham v. Eppinger & Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Habersham v. Eppinger & Russell, 61 Ga. 199 (Ga. 1878).

Opinion

Jackson, Justice.

This was a warrant issued on the application and affidavit of Habersham against the defendants for rent over-due. The defendants made the counter affidavit authorized by section 4083 of the Code, and the case thus made was returned to the superior court. That court dismissed the counter affidavit on motion of the plaintiff; and then the defendants made a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s case because his affidavit and warrant were insufficient in not setting out the names of the persons who composed the firm of Eppinger <fc .Russell; which motion was granted by the court, and the plaintiff brings this latter ruling here for review.

In our judgment it is the counter affidavit which brings and holds the case in the superior court. Unless that was legal, it was the duty of the sheriff to go on with his levy and sale; and when the court dismissed that counter affida[201]*201vit because it was illegal, tbe case was no longer in that court, and it bad no jurisdiction to pass the order, dr render the judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs warrant, or setting it aside.

The case by operation of law was remanded to the sheriff, and the superior court had no jurisdiction of it further.

The plaintiff made the motion to dismiss the counter affidavit, and when the court granted that motion, the only issue for trial made by the Code, section 4083, was out of court, and the case there was at an end.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Realty Management, Inc. v. Keith
151 S.E.2d 189 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Kennedy v. Miller
175 S.E. 588 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Yancey v. Karwisch
59 S.E. 777 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Haines v. Chappell
58 S.E. 220 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Howell v. Allen
31 S.E. 759 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Murphey v. McGough
31 S.E. 757 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Griggs v. Willbanks
22 S.E. 327 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1895)
Clark v. Lee
6 S.E. 170 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1888)
Sims v. Hatcher & Wilkerson
3 S.E. 92 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1887)
Girtman v. Stanford
68 Ga. 178 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1881)
Anders v. Blount
67 Ga. 41 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1881)
Drake v. Dawson
66 Ga. 174 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1880)
McCulloch v. Good, Small & Co.
63 Ga. 519 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1879)
Eppinger & Russell v. Habersham
63 Ga. 664 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 Ga. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/habersham-v-eppinger-russell-ga-1878.