Hatten v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

124 S.E. 808, 32 Ga. App. 789, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 666
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 9, 1924·No. 15518·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

On the trial of an issue formed upon the traverse of an answer ■ to a summons of garnishment, the undisputed evidence showed that the garnishee was indebted to the defendant in the garnishment proceedings in the sum of $69.20, which was paid out by the garnishee on two “watch orders,” one executed before and the other after the service of the summons of garnishment. Conceding (but not deciding) that the amount paid out oh the first “watch order” was not subject to the garnishment, the amount paid out on the second “watch order,” under the facts of the case, was clearly subject to the garnishment, and the trial [790] court therefore erred in deciding against the traverse. -Civil Code (1910), §,5273; Smith v. Pickett, 7 Ga. 104; Citizens Nat. Bank v. Dasher, 16 Ga. App. 33 (2).

Decided October 9, 1924. J. P. Burnett, H. P. Strohecker, for plaintiff. Turpin & Lane, for defendant.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur.

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

Hatten v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 124 S.E. 808, 32 Ga. App. 789, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 666 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

124 S.E. 808 (Hatten v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related