Tennessee-Virginia Construction Co. v. Willingham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tennessee-Virginia Construction Co. v. Willingham

153 S.E.2d 627, 115 Ga. App. 90, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1015

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 24, 1967

Docket42470

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.E.2d 627 (Tennessee-Virginia Construction Co. v. Willingham) 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

Tennessee-Virginia Construction Co. v. Willingham, 153 S.E.2d 627, 115 Ga. App. 90, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1015 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

The sole contention of the defendant, appellant here, is that attachment will not lie to recover unliquidated damages or where the contract breached requires property other than money to be delivered to the plaintiff.

In support of the contention the defendant cites Mills v. Findlay, 14 Ga. 230, and Monroe v. Bishop, 29 Ga. 159. The Mills case, decided in 1853, held that attachment would not lie to recover unliquidated damages. Thereafter, in 1857, the General Assembly adopted an Act, now codified as Code § 8-102, which provides: “In all cases of money demands, whether arising ex contractu or ex delicto, the plaintiff shall have the right to sue out the attachment when the defendant shall have placed himself in such situation as will authorize a plaintiff to sue out attachment.” See Code § 8-101 (grounds of attachment). In construing the statute adopted after the decision in the Mills case the Supreme Court held that attachment would lie for ■unliquidated money demands. Morton v. Pearman, 28 Ga. 323. The decision in the Monroe case, supra, relied on by the defendant involved an attachment sued out at a time when no debt was presently due and on an obligation which could be satisfied in futuro by other than the payment of money, to wit: notes.

In the case sub judice the plaintiff seeks the issuance of attachment based on in praesenti money demands, although concededly unliquidated. Hence, the declaration was not subject to the defendant's general demurrers for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Frankum, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

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

Quillian, Judge.

The sole contention of the defendant, appellant here, is that attachment will not lie to recover unliquidated damages or where the contract breached requires property other than money to be delivered to the plaintiff.

In support of the contention the defendant cites Mills v. Findlay, 14 Ga. 230, and Monroe v. Bishop, 29 Ga. 159. The Mills case, decided in 1853, held that attachment would not lie to recover unliquidated damages. Thereafter, in 1857, the General Assembly adopted an Act, now codified as Code § 8-102, which provides: “In all cases of money demands, whether arising ex contractu or ex delicto, the plaintiff shall have the right to sue out the attachment when the defendant shall have placed himself in such situation as will authorize a plaintiff to sue out attachment.” See Code § 8-101 (grounds of attachment). In construing the statute adopted after the decision in the Mills case the Supreme Court held that attachment would lie for ■unliquidated money demands. Morton v. Pearman, 28 Ga. 323. The decision in the Monroe case, supra, relied on by the defendant involved an attachment sued out at a time when no debt was presently due and on an obligation which could be satisfied in futuro by other than the payment of money, to wit: notes.

In the case sub judice the plaintiff seeks the issuance of attachment based on in praesenti money demands, although concededly unliquidated. Hence, the declaration was not subject to the defendant's general demurrers for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Frankum, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E.2d 627, 115 Ga. App. 90, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tennessee-virginia-construction-co-v-willingham-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack