Thomas v. Grissom

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thomas v. Grissom

383 S.E.2d 907, 191 Ga. App. 421, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 659

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 28, 1989

DocketA89A1182

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 383 S.E.2d 907 (Thomas v. Grissom) 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

Thomas v. Grissom, 383 S.E.2d 907, 191 Ga. App. 421, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 659 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Thomas obtained a judgment against defendant Grissom in an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision. Subsequently, plaintiff instituted a garnishment action and named as garnishee, Safeway Insurance Company, the insurer of defendant Grissom’s automobile. The garnishee’s answer stated that it had no property of the defendant in its possession. The plaintiff traversed the garnishee’s answer and the garnishee filed its motion for summary judgment along with supporting evidence. Plaintiff appeals from the grant of the garnishee’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff. Held:

“ ‘OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4) provides that in cases involving garnishment, except for all judgments or orders granting or refusing applications for attachment against fraudulent debtors which are directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (5) (such judgments or orders are not in issue here), an application for appeal must be taken. Inasmuch as [plaintiff] has failed to obtain an order of this court permitting the filing of an appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4), the appeal must be dismissed. (Cit.)’ Murdock v. Bank of America &c., 177 Ga. App. 409, 410 (339 SE2d 392) (1985).” Wallace v. Saks Fifth Ave., 180 Ga. App. 679 (350 SE2d 308).

Appeal dismissed.

Carley, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

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

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Thomas obtained a judgment against defendant Grissom in an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision. Subsequently, plaintiff instituted a garnishment action and named as garnishee, Safeway Insurance Company, the insurer of defendant Grissom’s automobile. The garnishee’s answer stated that it had no property of the defendant in its possession. The plaintiff traversed the garnishee’s answer and the garnishee filed its motion for summary judgment along with supporting evidence. Plaintiff appeals from the grant of the garnishee’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff. Held:

“ ‘OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4) provides that in cases involving garnishment, except for all judgments or orders granting or refusing applications for attachment against fraudulent debtors which are directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (5) (such judgments or orders are not in issue here), an application for appeal must be taken. Inasmuch as [plaintiff] has failed to obtain an order of this court permitting the filing of an appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4), the appeal must be dismissed. (Cit.)’ Murdock v. Bank of America &c., 177 Ga. App. 409, 410 (339 SE2d 392) (1985).” Wallace v. Saks Fifth Ave., 180 Ga. App. 679 (350 SE2d 308).

Appeal dismissed.

Carley, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 S.E.2d 907, 191 Ga. App. 421, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-grissom-gactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack