Legal Opinion
McIntire v. Raskin
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided November 15, 1930No. 20370PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
1. In answer to a summons of garnishment, “the garnishee shall file his answer stating what amount he was indebted to the defendant, or what effects he had in his hands belonging to defendant, at the time of the service of such summons, and what he has become indebted to the defendant, or what effects have come into his hands belonging to the defendant, between the time of the service of such summons and the making of.his answer.” Civil Code (1910), § 5281.
2. Under the ruling of this court in Watt-Harley-Holmes Hdw. Co. v. Day, 1 Ga. App. 646 (57 S. E. 1033), where a summons of garnishment…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Watt-Harley-Holmes Hardware Co. v. DayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Parker-Fain Grocery Co. v. OrrCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Kirby Planing Mill Co. v. TitusCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
- Groves v. Bibb Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1919
- Andrews v. SasserCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- McIntire v. RaskinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
- Cuesta, Rey Co. v. Newsom, as LiquidatorSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
- McIntire v. RaskinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931