Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Barnett

76 Ga. 377
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 20, 1886·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Blandford, Justice.

The question here is, whether a constable can protect himself, under a rule, for not making the money due on a fi.fa. placed in his hands, on the ground that thefi.fa. did not follow the judgment upon which it was issued.

This court held in Gladden, sheriff, vs. J. L. & R. H. Cobb, decided at September term, 1884 (73 Ga., 235), that a sheriff would not be protected, upon a rule against him, on the ground that the execution issued on an irregular proceeding, for not collecting the amount due on the execution. The execution in the present case is not void, but only voidable, and could have been amended. The officer is not a judicial, but a ministerial officer ; ho must execute all process placed in his hands which is regular and proper on its face and which is issued by a person having authority to do so. 19 Ga., 139, 268.

Judgment reversed.

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

Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Barnett, 76 Ga. 377 (Ga. 1886).

76 Ga. 377 (Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Barnett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vesta Holdings, LLC v. Freeman
632 S.E.2d 87 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2006)
Bowers v. Price
320 S.E.2d 211 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Burney v. Mayor of Boston
100 S.E. 28 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Horrigan v. Savannah Grocery Co.
54 S.E. 961 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Wilbur v. Stokes
43 S.E. 856 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)