Vittur v. McClure Ten-Cent Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Vittur v. McClure Ten-Cent Co.

139 S.E. 799, 164 Ga. 878, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 298

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 1, 1927

DocketNo. 5643

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 S.E. 799 (Vittur v. McClure Ten-Cent Co.) 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

Vittur v. McClure Ten-Cent Co., 139 S.E. 799, 164 Ga. 878, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 298 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

Opinions

Atkinson, J.

A creditor, having obtained a common-law judgment against Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Ferguson, caused summons of garnishment to be issued against Yittur Transfer & Storage Company. The return of the officer was as follows: “ Georgia, Fulton County. I have this day served summons of garnishment issued upon within affidavit and were [writ?] on Yitturs Trans. & Str. Co. by serving same on Ernest Yitturs its partner and personally in charge of the office and place of business at the time of service of said garnishee in City of Atlanta, said county, at 12-05 o’clock p. m. This the 4th day of Sept., 1925. H. W. Shadburn, D. M.” No answer to the summons of garnishment was filed, and a judgment was entered against “Yitturs Trans. & Storage Co.,” as garnishee, for the amount of the judgment. Execution was issued upon the judgment against the garnishee, and was levied upon certain property as the property of the Yittur Transfer & Storage Co. Afterward Ernest J. Yittur as guardian of Charles Yittur instituted an equitable action seeking to enjoin enforcement of the levy, upon the grounds that the judgment against the garnishee was void, because the Yittur Transfer & Storage Company was the name under which Charles Yittur, an insane person, did business which was being managed by E. J. Yittur as guardian for Charles Yittur; that E. J. Yittur as guardian was not served with the summons of garnishment; and that E. J. Yittur was not a partner in said business. The court denied an injunction, and the plaintiff excepted.

Even if the plaintiff in this equitable suit did not have an adequate remedy at law by an affidavit of illegality, he had such remedy at law by filing a claim. On the trial of the claim case the claimant [879]*879could attack the judgment as void. Wheeler v. Martin, 145 Ga. 164 (1a) (88 S. E. 950). Under application of the principle that equity will not interfere where the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, the court did not err in refusing an injunction. See Smith v. Murphey, 140 Ga. 80 (78 S. E. 423).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Bussell, G. J., who dissents, and Hill, J., absent.

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

Atkinson, J.

A creditor, having obtained a common-law judgment against Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Ferguson, caused summons of garnishment to be issued against Yittur Transfer & Storage Company. The return of the officer was as follows: “ Georgia, Fulton County. I have this day served summons of garnishment issued upon within affidavit and were [writ?] on Yitturs Trans. & Str. Co. by serving same on Ernest Yitturs its partner and personally in charge of the office and place of business at the time of service of said garnishee in City of Atlanta, said county, at 12-05 o’clock p. m. This the 4th day of Sept., 1925. H. W. Shadburn, D. M.” No answer to the summons of garnishment was filed, and a judgment was entered against “Yitturs Trans. & Storage Co.,” as garnishee, for the amount of the judgment. Execution was issued upon the judgment against the garnishee, and was levied upon certain property as the property of the Yittur Transfer & Storage Co. Afterward Ernest J. Yittur as guardian of Charles Yittur instituted an equitable action seeking to enjoin enforcement of the levy, upon the grounds that the judgment against the garnishee was void, because the Yittur Transfer & Storage Company was the name under which Charles Yittur, an insane person, did business which was being managed by E. J. Yittur as guardian for Charles Yittur; that E. J. Yittur as guardian was not served with the summons of garnishment; and that E. J. Yittur was not a partner in said business. The court denied an injunction, and the plaintiff excepted.

Even if the plaintiff in this equitable suit did not have an adequate remedy at law by an affidavit of illegality, he had such remedy at law by filing a claim. On the trial of the claim case the claimant [879]*879could attack the judgment as void. Wheeler v. Martin, 145 Ga. 164 (1a) (88 S. E. 950). Under application of the principle that equity will not interfere where the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, the court did not err in refusing an injunction. See Smith v. Murphey, 140 Ga. 80 (78 S. E. 423).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Bussell, G. J., who dissents, and Hill, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 799, 164 Ga. 878, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vittur-v-mcclure-ten-cent-co-ga-1927.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack