Smith v. Rome Hardware Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Rome Hardware Co.

97 S.E. 94, 22 Ga. App. 667, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 668

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 15, 1918

Docket9527

StatusPublished

This text of 97 S.E. 94 (Smith v. Rome Hardware 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

Smith v. Rome Hardware Co., 97 S.E. 94, 22 Ga. App. 667, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

The claimant in a garnishment case, being a party to a proceeding brought thereafter in the superior court to distribute the funds deposited with the clerk of that court under the garnishment proceedings, possession of which she had acquired by filing bond as required by law, was bound by the judgment, of that court, distributing the funds; and, the clerk having paid out the funds in accordance with that judgment, an action in the name of the obligee of the bond, for the use of the clerk, could be maintained to recover from the claimant and her surety on the bond the amount so paid out. The trial judge did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

The claimant in a garnishment case, being a party to a proceeding brought thereafter in the superior court to distribute the funds deposited with the clerk of that court under the garnishment proceedings, possession of which she had acquired by filing bond as required by law, was bound by the judgment, of that court, distributing the funds; and, the clerk having paid out the funds in accordance with that judgment, an action in the name of the obligee of the bond, for the use of the clerk, could be maintained to recover from the claimant and her surety on the bond the amount so paid out. The trial judge did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 94, 22 Ga. App. 667, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-rome-hardware-co-gactapp-1918.