Harvey v. Long Cigar & Grocery Co.

135 S.E. 222, 36 Ga. App. 45, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 748
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 13, 1926
Docket17347
StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 222 (Harvey v. Long Cigar & Grocery Co.) 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
Harvey v. Long Cigar & Grocery Co., 135 S.E. 222, 36 Ga. App. 45, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 748 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

Where a judgment in favor of a claimant was reversed by the appellate court, and the judgment of that court was made the judgment of the court below, and an execution for the costs incurred in the proceeding in the appellate court was issued against the claimant and the sureties on the forthcoming bond, the fact that the judgment on the remittitur included the sureties as liable with the claimant for such costs did not render that judgment and the execution founded thereon illegal so far as the claimant was concerned. Ray v. Atlanta Banking Co., 110 Ga. 305 (6) (35 S. E. 117). Accordingly, on the trial of an affidavit of illegality interposed to a levy of the execution upon the property of the claimant, the court correctly held that tfrfe execution was proceeding legally so far as the claimant was concerned.

Nor was the levy under such an execution, issued in the name of the plaintiff for the use of officers of court, subject to be arrested by affidavit of illegality on account of its being made to appear that the attorney for the plaintiff had advanced the' costs incurred in the appellate court. Civil Code (1910), § 6210.

The ground that the execution was proceeding illegally for the reason that it appeared that the appellant had not actually paid the costs is without [46]*46merit, .especially since the execution was on its face proceeding for the benefit of the officers.

Decided October 13, 1926. J. J. Bull & Son, for plaintiff in error. Jule W. Felton, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ray v. Atlanta Banking Co.
35 S.E. 117 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 S.E. 222, 36 Ga. App. 45, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-long-cigar-grocery-co-gactapp-1926.