Slayton v. Jones

Supreme Court of Georgia

Slayton v. Jones

15 Ga. 89

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 15, 1854

DocketNo. 6

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 Ga. 89 (Slayton v. Jones) 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

Slayton v. Jones, 15 Ga. 89 (Ga. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Bennins, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] “ It shall and may be lawful for the plaintiff in any judgment or execution, to sell or transfer the same, by written assignment or control, and said sale or assignment shall not be considered a discharge or satisfaction of said execution; but the assignee may proceed to- collect the same, for his own use, in as full and ample a manner as the plaintiff could have done, if no such transfer or assignment had been made”.— This is the first section of the Act of 1829, to sitithorize the assignment of judgments and executions. (Pr. Dig. 464.)

Under this Law, Russell, by the assignment, stepped into the place of’ the assignor, Jones; and Jones became disconnected with the fi. fa.

Slayton, when he entered his claim, knew of this assignment.

Russell, therefore, was clearly the plaintiff in the claim case; and for that reason, he, instead of Jones,, should have been served with the notice.

[91]*91No notice of any sort having been served on him, it is obvious that the motion must be sustained, and .the case be dismissed.

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

By the Court.

Bennins, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] “ It shall and may be lawful for the plaintiff in any judgment or execution, to sell or transfer the same, by written assignment or control, and said sale or assignment shall not be considered a discharge or satisfaction of said execution; but the assignee may proceed to- collect the same, for his own use, in as full and ample a manner as the plaintiff could have done, if no such transfer or assignment had been made”.— This is the first section of the Act of 1829, to sitithorize the assignment of judgments and executions. (Pr. Dig. 464.)

Under this Law, Russell, by the assignment, stepped into the place of’ the assignor, Jones; and Jones became disconnected with the fi. fa.

Slayton, when he entered his claim, knew of this assignment.

Russell, therefore, was clearly the plaintiff in the claim case; and for that reason, he, instead of Jones,, should have been served with the notice.

[91]*91No notice of any sort having been served on him, it is obvious that the motion must be sustained, and .the case be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Ga. 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slayton-v-jones-ga-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack