Kuniansky v. Hogan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kuniansky v. Hogan

71 S.E. 777, 9 Ga. App. 482, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 191

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 29, 1911

Docket3084

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 777 (Kuniansky v. Hogan) 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

Kuniansky v. Hogan, 71 S.E. 777, 9 Ga. App. 482, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 191 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

A. sued B. in a justice’s court on an account, and had process of garnishment issued and served. The garnishee answered, admitting indebtedness, and setting up that this indebtedness was exempt -from process of garnishment, because it was an indebtedness for daily, weekly, and monthly wages. B. dissolved the garnishment by giving the statutory bond. Before obtaining a judgment against B., and without any traverse of the garnishee’s answer, the justice rendered a judgment on the dissolution bond in favor of A. for the amount of the indebtedness admitted by the garnishee’s answer. Held, that this judgment was erroneous, first, because there was no previous judgment entered against the main defendant; and, secondly, because there was no traverse of the garnishee’s answer and no judgment rendered finding the property or funds in the hands of the garnishee subject to the garnishment. Civil Code (1910), §§ 5281, 5282, 5292; Smith v. Kennedy, 125 Ga. 830 (54 S. E. 731), and cases cited. Judgment affirmed.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Bell. October 12, 1910. • '

George W. Brooks, for plaintiff in error. 8. G. Grane, contra.

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

Hill, C. J.

A. sued B. in a justice’s court on an account, and had process of garnishment issued and served. The garnishee answered, admitting indebtedness, and setting up that this indebtedness was exempt -from process of garnishment, because it was an indebtedness for daily, weekly, and monthly wages. B. dissolved the garnishment by giving the statutory bond. Before obtaining a judgment against B., and without any traverse of the garnishee’s answer, the justice rendered a judgment on the dissolution bond in favor of A. for the amount of the indebtedness admitted by the garnishee’s answer. Held, that this judgment was erroneous, first, because there was no previous judgment entered against the main defendant; and, secondly, because there was no traverse of the garnishee’s answer and no judgment rendered finding the property or funds in the hands of the garnishee subject to the garnishment. Civil Code (1910), §§ 5281, 5282, 5292; Smith v. Kennedy, 125 Ga. 830 (54 S. E. 731), and cases cited. Judgment affirmed.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Bell. October 12, 1910. • '

George W. Brooks, for plaintiff in error. 8. G. Grane, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 777, 9 Ga. App. 482, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuniansky-v-hogan-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack