Oliver v. Parramore

1. “It is well settled by the decisions both of this court and of the Supreme Court that ‘some overt act of constructive seizure is essential to the validity of the levy of an attachment upon real estate.’ Groover v. Melton, 2 Ga. App. 269 (58 S. E. 488), and cit. See also United Provisions Cor. v. Board of Missions, 33 Ga. App. 9 (124 S. E. 820). It is true that a vested remainder in realty is subject to levy under a common-law execution (Shipp v. Gibbs, 88 Ga. 184, 14 S. E. 196; Perkins v. Farmers Bank of Doerun, 156 Ga. 841, 120 S. E. 528); and assuming, without deciding, that it may also…