Mixon v. Lacey
This text of 107 S.E. 259 (Mixon v. Lacey) 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
1. Upon tlie trial of an issue formed between a plaintiff in an attachment upon which a garnishment has issued and a claimant to a fund which the garnishee in his answer admits that he holds as the property of the defendant in attachment, where the evidence of the garnishee tends to show that the fund belonged, at the time of the levy, to the defendant in attachment, it is error to nonsuit the plaintiff and dismiss the attachment upon the ground that the plaintiff has failed to carry the burden of proof which rests upon the plaintiff in a claim case where the property levied upon was not at the time of the levy In the possession of the defendant in fi. fa.
2. The written correspondence between the garnishee and the defendant in attachment, which was conducted prior to the issuance of the attachment and which was admitted in evidence, tended to establish a contractual relation between the parties and to show a sale of goods from the defendant in attachment to the garnishee which would authorize the inference that the garnishee was indebted to or held funds belonging to the defendant in attachment. Such of the correspondence as consist[543]*543ed of letters from the defendant in attachment to the garnishee were more than mere declarations by him in favor of his title, and their admission in evidence therefore was not subject to objection upon the ground that they were mere declarations in favor of his title.
[543]*543 Judgment reversed on the main MU of exceptions, and affirmed on the cross-Mil.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
107 S.E. 259, 26 Ga. App. 542, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mixon-v-lacey-gactapp-1921.