Hargis v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co.

15 S.E. 631, 90 Ga. 42
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 1, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 15 S.E. 631 (Hargis v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co.) 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
Hargis v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co., 15 S.E. 631, 90 Ga. 42 (Ga. 1892).

Opinion

Judgment affirmed.

Garnishment. Service. Corporation. Agent. Before Judge Turnbull. City court of Floyd county. September term, 1891. Hargis sued Phelps, andobtained judgment for $261.92 principal, with interest and costs. Two summonses of garnishment in the cause were served upon the East Tenn., Ya. & Ga., Railway Company, one by serving Lawrence, agent, on July 14, 1891, and the other by serving Graves, agent, on July 15, 1891. Graves answered that he was the agent of the E. T., Y. & Ga. Ry. Co., garnishees, and was the same agent of the garnishees who was served with process of garnishment in the case; that at the time of the service the garnishees had no property, money or effects of Phelps in their hands, nor had any come into their hands at any time from the date of the service to the date of this answer, nor did the garnishees owe Phelps anything at the date of the service, nor had they become indebted to Phelps at any time between the date of the service and the date of the answer; and that on July 22, 1891, Phelps dissolved the garnishment by filing proper bond, etc. This answer was made December 16, 1891. No answer was made-by Lawrence to the summons served upon him as agent. There being a judgment against Phelps, plaintiff moved the court for a judgment against the garnishees because of the failure to answer the summons served upon Lawrence, which motion was refused by the court, and the plaintiff' excepted. W. D. Elam, by brief, for plaintiff. McCutchen & Shumate, contra.

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

Related

K. & L. Construction Co. v. Central Bank & Trust Co.
258 S.E.2d 771 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Twilley & Hodges v. Middle Georgia Bank
111 S.E. 694 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Dickerson
82 S.E. 942 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Jones v. Bibb Brick Co.
48 S.E. 25 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Holbrook & Co. v. Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad
39 S.E. 938 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)
Third National Bank v. McCullough Bros.
33 S.E. 848 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 S.E. 631, 90 Ga. 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hargis-v-east-tenn-va-ga-railway-co-ga-1892.