Henry v. Ringle
161 S.E. 269, 44 Ga. App. 293, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 681
Opinion
Under all the facts of the ease, including the admissions of W. T. Henry, guardian, made in open court, the judge did not err in striking said Henry’s response to the rule nisi (served upon him in a proceeding to distribute funds), upon the ground that the response showed on its face that the debt in question was one dischargeable in bankruptcy, and properly passed an order directing that the funds be paid over to Ringle, the receiver.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Henry v. Ringle, 161 S.E. 269, 44 Ga. App. 293, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 681 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).
161 S.E. 269 (Henry v. Ringle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Garmon v. Davis
12 S.E.2d 209 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Hartsfield Co. v. Newlin
176 S.E. 516 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)