Smith v. Lockett
73 Ga. 104
Opinion
[A fi. fa. was levied and claim interposed. On the trial, claimant moved to quash the execution and dismiss the levy, because the clerk had no authority to issue the fi. fa. after the death of one of the two defendants, and because the fi.fa. was issued for costs in addition to the debt, when the judgment showed that the plaintiff assumed to pay the. costs. The motion was sustained, and plaintiff excepted.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. Lockett, 73 Ga. 104 (Ga. 1884).
73 Ga. 104 (Smith v. Lockett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Chambliss v. Kindred
107 S.E.2d 205 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
Potts v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
47 S.E.2d 178 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1948)
Byers v. Black Motor Co.
16 S.E.2d 478 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Bank of Tupelo v. Collier
14 S.E.2d 59 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Calhoun v. Williamson
5 S.E.2d 41 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Pursley v. Manley
144 S.E. 242 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Mims v. McKenzie
96 S.E. 441 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Edwards v. Price
75 S.E. 1067 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Hatcher v. Lord
61 L.R.A. 353 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Parker & Co. v. Mathews
31 S.E. 784 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Smith v. Rust
5 S.E. 250 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1888)