Macon Navigation Co. v. Schofield's Sons

Supreme Court of Georgia

Macon Navigation Co. v. Schofield's Sons

36 S.E. 965, 111 Ga. 881, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 884

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 9, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 36 S.E. 965 (Macon Navigation Co. v. Schofield's Sons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Macon Navigation Co. v. Schofield's Sons, 36 S.E. 965, 111 Ga. 881, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 884 (Ga. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Little, T.

1. A person interested in litigation as a party to a case in atrial court may on motion be made a party plaintiff in error in this court, in connection with the person suing out the bill of exceptions, they being on the same side in the lower court, and the writ of error will not be dismissed on motion of the defendant in error because such person has not been served with the bill of exceptions. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Griffith, 111 Ga. 551.

2. The secretary and treasurer of a company, who as such holds funds belonging to it, is not subject to a process of garnishment requiring him to answer what property or effects he has in his hands belonging to the company of which he is an officer; his possession of such property as an officer is possession by the company. If such officer has been garnished as an individual, and he holds anything in his hands-as an individual belonging to the company, such officer as an individual is subject to garnishment, and the property which he holds as an individual may be subjected to a debt against the company.

3. When the person who holds the office of secretary and treasurer of an incorporated company has been garnished, both as an officer of the company andas an individual, to answerw'hathe is indebted to thecompany, or what effects belonging to it he has in his hands, and answers that as-an individual he owes the defendant nothing and has none of its effects in his hands, but that as an officer of said company he has in his hands a given sum of money belonging to his company, it is error to entera judgment against the garnishee for the amount admitted to be in his hands as an officer of such company.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

Garnishment. Before Judge Nottingham. City court of Macon. September term, 1899.

Arthur L. Dasher, for plaintiff in error. Estes & Jones, contra.

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

Little, T.

1. A person interested in litigation as a party to a case in atrial court may on motion be made a party plaintiff in error in this court, in connection with the person suing out the bill of exceptions, they being on the same side in the lower court, and the writ of error will not be dismissed on motion of the defendant in error because such person has not been served with the bill of exceptions. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Griffith, 111 Ga. 551.

2. The secretary and treasurer of a company, who as such holds funds belonging to it, is not subject to a process of garnishment requiring him to answer what property or effects he has in his hands belonging to the company of which he is an officer; his possession of such property as an officer is possession by the company. If such officer has been garnished as an individual, and he holds anything in his hands-as an individual belonging to the company, such officer as an individual is subject to garnishment, and the property which he holds as an individual may be subjected to a debt against the company.

3. When the person who holds the office of secretary and treasurer of an incorporated company has been garnished, both as an officer of the company andas an individual, to answerw'hathe is indebted to thecompany, or what effects belonging to it he has in his hands, and answers that as-an individual he owes the defendant nothing and has none of its effects in his hands, but that as an officer of said company he has in his hands a given sum of money belonging to his company, it is error to entera judgment against the garnishee for the amount admitted to be in his hands as an officer of such company.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

Garnishment. Before Judge Nottingham. City court of Macon. September term, 1899.

Arthur L. Dasher, for plaintiff in error. Estes & Jones, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 S.E. 965, 111 Ga. 881, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macon-navigation-co-v-schofields-sons-ga-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack