Hatten v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
This text of 124 S.E. 808 (Hatten v. Central of Georgia Railway 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.
Opinion
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]*790court 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).
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
124 S.E. 808, 32 Ga. App. 789, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatten-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-gactapp-1924.