Shelton v. Stone & Sons Plumbing Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shelton v. Stone & Sons Plumbing Co.

164 S.E.2d 159, 118 Ga. App. 435, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1420

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 1, 1968

Docket43906

StatusPublished

This text of 164 S.E.2d 159 (Shelton v. Stone & Sons Plumbing Co.) 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

Shelton v. Stone & Sons Plumbing Co., 164 S.E.2d 159, 118 Ga. App. 435, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1420 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

Where a plaintiff institutes an action in this State alleging therein that the defendant is a nonresident of [436]*436this State, and seeks a personal judgment against the defendant, and a judgment on a materialman’s lien against realty, and the record shows on its face there is no personal service upon defendant, and the defendant does not appear and plead, the judgment rendered thereon is void. See Ford v. Southern R. Co., 33 Ga. App. 24 (1) (125 SE 479).

Argued September 10, 1968 Decided October 1, 1968. James L. May son, for appellant.

Where, at the same time and in the same court, the same plaintiff secured a writ of attachment against the same defendant on the same debt, the ground of attachment being the nonresidence of the defendant, the petition above referred to cannot be considered as the declaration in attachment required by Code Ann. § -8-601. See Lester v. Luttrell, 106 Ga. App. 574, 575 (127 SE2d 817). And it being now too late to file a declaration of attachment in the absence of a waiver by the defendant which does not appear as a matter of record, no valid judgment against the defendant can be entered in the attachment proceedings. Callaway v. Maxwell, 123 Ga. 208 (2) (51 SE 320).

Accordingly, upon traverse to an answer filed to the service of a summons of garnishment based on the attachment, the trial judge finds in favor of the plaintiff and enters a judgment against the garnishee, such judgment is unauthorized until a judgment against the defendant is secured. Code § 46-405. The record discloses that no valid judgment was entered, or can be entered in the suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant (even if such a judgment would be sufficient here), and that no valid judgment against the defendant can be entered in the attachment proceedings upon which the garnishment was based. It therefore becomes unnecessary to determine whether the trial judge’s finding from the evidence that the garnishee was indebted to the defendant was supported by the evidence, and direction is given that the judgment against the garnishee be vacated.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Jordan, P. J., and Leen, J., concur.

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

Pannell, Judge.

Where a plaintiff institutes an action in this State alleging therein that the defendant is a nonresident of [436]*436this State, and seeks a personal judgment against the defendant, and a judgment on a materialman’s lien against realty, and the record shows on its face there is no personal service upon defendant, and the defendant does not appear and plead, the judgment rendered thereon is void. See Ford v. Southern R. Co., 33 Ga. App. 24 (1) (125 SE 479).

Argued September 10, 1968 Decided October 1, 1968. James L. May son, for appellant.

Where, at the same time and in the same court, the same plaintiff secured a writ of attachment against the same defendant on the same debt, the ground of attachment being the nonresidence of the defendant, the petition above referred to cannot be considered as the declaration in attachment required by Code Ann. § -8-601. See Lester v. Luttrell, 106 Ga. App. 574, 575 (127 SE2d 817). And it being now too late to file a declaration of attachment in the absence of a waiver by the defendant which does not appear as a matter of record, no valid judgment against the defendant can be entered in the attachment proceedings. Callaway v. Maxwell, 123 Ga. 208 (2) (51 SE 320).

Accordingly, upon traverse to an answer filed to the service of a summons of garnishment based on the attachment, the trial judge finds in favor of the plaintiff and enters a judgment against the garnishee, such judgment is unauthorized until a judgment against the defendant is secured. Code § 46-405. The record discloses that no valid judgment was entered, or can be entered in the suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant (even if such a judgment would be sufficient here), and that no valid judgment against the defendant can be entered in the attachment proceedings upon which the garnishment was based. It therefore becomes unnecessary to determine whether the trial judge’s finding from the evidence that the garnishee was indebted to the defendant was supported by the evidence, and direction is given that the judgment against the garnishee be vacated.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Jordan, P. J., and Leen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E.2d 159, 118 Ga. App. 435, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelton-v-stone-sons-plumbing-co-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack