Smith, Barry & Co. v. Bearden

45 S.E. 59, 117 Ga. 822, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 350
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 27, 1903·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Eisii, J.

An entry made by a proper officer upon an execution issued from a judgment rendered in 'a justice’s court, unless recorded upon the execution docket of the superior court of the county where the defendant resides, will not, even as between the parties to the judgment, arrest the running of the dormancy statute. Civil Code, §§ 3761, 3762; Nowell v. Haire, 116 Ga. 386.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Affidavit of illegality. Before W. S. Upshaw, judge pro hac vice. Morgan superior court. September 1, 1902. . J. R. Rolland, for plaintiffs. George <& Anderson, for defendant.

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

Smith, Barry & Co. v. Bearden, 45 S.E. 59, 117 Ga. 822, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 350 (Ga. 1903).

45 S.E. 59 (Smith, Barry & Co. v. Bearden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pope v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
31 S.E.2d 602 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Aldridge v. Cole
71 S.E. 891 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)
Dunlap Hardware Co. v. Tharp
58 S.E. 398 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Benton & Brother v. Fish
57 S.E. 1079 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Palmer v. Inman
55 S.E. 229 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Columbus Fertilizer Co. v. Hanks
47 S.E. 222 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)