Murphy v. Columbus Mills

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Murphy v. Columbus Mills

156 S.E.2d 657, 116 Ga. App. 198, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 741

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 29, 1967

Docket42720

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 S.E.2d 657 (Murphy v. Columbus Mills) 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

Murphy v. Columbus Mills, 156 S.E.2d 657, 116 Ga. App. 198, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 741 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

Where, as in the instant case, a purported, although for many reasons a fatally defective, answer to a summons of garnishment has been filed by the garnishee within the time required by law, and such answer, as shown on the face of the record, remains untraversed and undisposed of, it should be first dismissed or otherwise disposed of before a judgment by default can be properly taken. Accordingly, the court did not err, at the same term upon discovering that such an answer had been filed in time, in setting aside the verdict and judgment by default, in order that the garnishment case might be legally disposed of. Dannenberg Co. v. Adler-May Co., 137 Ga. 111 (72 SE 906); Brown Realty Co. v. Joel Hunter & Co., 44 Ga. App. 146 (160 SE 681); Anderson v. Fulton County Home Builders, 147 Ga. 104 (92 SE 934); Aycock v. Royal Ins. Co., Ltd., 46 Ga. App. 299 (167 SE 551).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

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

Pannell, Judge.

Where, as in the instant case, a purported, although for many reasons a fatally defective, answer to a summons of garnishment has been filed by the garnishee within the time required by law, and such answer, as shown on the face of the record, remains untraversed and undisposed of, it should be first dismissed or otherwise disposed of before a judgment by default can be properly taken. Accordingly, the court did not err, at the same term upon discovering that such an answer had been filed in time, in setting aside the verdict and judgment by default, in order that the garnishment case might be legally disposed of. Dannenberg Co. v. Adler-May Co., 137 Ga. 111 (72 SE 906); Brown Realty Co. v. Joel Hunter & Co., 44 Ga. App. 146 (160 SE 681); Anderson v. Fulton County Home Builders, 147 Ga. 104 (92 SE 934); Aycock v. Royal Ins. Co., Ltd., 46 Ga. App. 299 (167 SE 551).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E.2d 657, 116 Ga. App. 198, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-columbus-mills-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack