Thompson v. Fischesser

45 Ga. 369
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 Ga. 369 (Thompson v. Fischesser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thompson v. Fischesser, 45 Ga. 369 (Ga. 1872).

Opinion

Warner, Chief Justice.

In this ease Heard was served with a summons of garnishment, at the instance of Thompson, a creditor of Fischesser, requiring him to answer what he was indebted to Fischesser, or what effects he had in his hands belonging to him. Heard, the garnishee, answered that he had in his hands $500 In gold, which was placed in his hands to indemnify him against any loss or damage he might sustain in going the security of Fischesser in a bail case, at the instance of Thompson, against Fischesser; that before he was exonerated and relieved from his securityship he was served with the summons of garnishment, that since the service of the garnishment he had been sued by one Margaret Fischesser for the said $500 in gold,, which she claims to be her property, which suit is now pend[370]*370ing in Elbert Superior Court; that the bail process against Fischesser had been dismissed.

Upon this answer of the garnishee the plaintiff moved the Court to enter up judgment for the $500 in gold, which motion was refused, and the plaintiff excepted. The garnishee does not admit in his answer that he is indebted to Fischesser, or that he had any effects in his hands belonging to him, but states the fact that the money was placed in his hands to indemnify him as security for Fischesser on his bail bond, without stating who placed the money in his hands. In our judgment it was not error in the Court below in refusing to order a judgment to be entered against the garnishee on the statement of facts contained in his answer. If the plaintiff had thought proper to do so, he could have traversed the answer of the garnishee, and have shown that the money in his bands was the property of Fischesser.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.

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

Related

Hallett, Seaver & Burbank v. Blain & Harris
58 Ga. 142 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 Ga. 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-fischesser-ga-1872.