Van Dyke v. Besser

34 Ga. 268
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 Ga. 268 (Van Dyke v. Besser) 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
Van Dyke v. Besser, 34 Ga. 268 (Ga. 1866).

Opinion

Walker, J.

In this case the execution was proceeding against the property of the corporation, and another defendant filed an affidavit of illegality to arrest its progress.

[1.] The Court below held that the affidavit must be made by, or at the instance of, the party against whom the execution was then proceeding. His decision was predicated upon section 3591 of the Code, which authorizes “ such person” whose property has been levied upon, or whose body has been arrested, to “ make oath in writing,” &c. In this case the affidavit was made by another party, and the Court [270]*270below decided, and we think properly, that there was m law no affidavit of illegality.

[2.] It was then proposed to amend the affidavit by adding the word “agent” to the name of affiant. Section 3130 of the Code, authorizes, by leave of the Court, the amendment of affidavits of illegality, “ by the insertion of. new and independent ground,” eie. It was not proposed here to add a new or independant ground of illegality; the motion was, to change the litigant party from Yan Dyke to the corporation. In this proceeding the statute gives no such authority. The proposition amounted simply to filing an affidavit then, as the foundation of the proceeding instituted previously — nothing . more, nothing less. The Court held this could not be done, and we think held right.

We do not deny the right of an agent to make an affidavit of illegality. We think sections 2185 and 3596 of the Code give such authority; but the motion was, to change the proceedings from the name of the individual into that of the corporation, and this, we hold, could not, in this sort of case, be done.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Tennessee Chemical Co. v. Harper
119 S.E. 448 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Walker v. Equitable Mortgage Co.
37 S.E. 862 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)
Clary & Whaley v. Haines
61 Ga. 520 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Ga. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-dyke-v-besser-ga-1866.