Dunlap v. Hooper
Supreme Court of Georgia
Garnishments. Lis Pendens. Attorney and Client.' Before Judge CLARK. City Court of Atlanta. December Term, 1880. ’ To the report contained in the decision, it is only necessary to -add that the first garnishment was based upon an ordinary affidavit of indebtedness, while the second garnishment was based on an affidavit made by the attorney of the plaintiff after judgment, stating the amount due, and that to the"best of deponent’s knowledge and belief the actual…
Read the full summary
Garnishments. Lis Pendens. Attorney and Client.' Before Judge CLARK. City Court of Atlanta. December Term, 1880. ’ To the report contained in the decision, it is only necessary to -add that the first garnishment was based upon an ordinary affidavit of indebtedness, while the second garnishment was based on an affidavit made by the attorney of the plaintiff after judgment, stating the amount due, and that to the"best of deponent’s knowledge and belief the actual consideration- of the debt was provisions furnished’ to the defendant by the plaintiff in 1875. ■ "
1Opinion of the Court
Jackson, Chief J ustice.
Suit was brought to recover a debt due by Dunlap to Hooper, and summons of garnishment was served on the *722garnishee pendente lite. After judgment a motion was made to dismiss it on the one hand, and on the other to enter up judgment upon it. The .court denied both motions, but required plaintiff to pay the costs on the summons.
Afterwards another summons of garnishment was issued and served on the same garnishee, grounded on the liability of the garnishee as owing wages to the defendant, the former not containing any allegation of the sort. On the answer to this last…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Raines v. RainesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- Cale v. CaleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981