Legal Opinion

Bugg v. Consolidated Grocery Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided May 15, 1923No. 3375PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRussell, C. J.

The only question involved in this case is whether a receiver appointed by a court is subject to garnishment without the consent of the court by which he was appointed. Our learned brethern of the Court of Appeals held that Bugg, as receiver of the Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railway Company, appointed by the United States court, could be garnished, and that therefore the funds admitted to be in his hands were subject to garnishment. In the second headnote of the decision of the Court of Appeals it is held: “ An indebtedness due by a receiver, appointed by a United States district court…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re TylerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Central Trust Co. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky · 1894
  3. Field v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
  4. Central Trust Co. of New York v. Chattanooga, R. & C. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee · 1895
  5. Clark v. TurnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Considine v. MurphySupreme Court of Georgia · 2015
  2. Pacolet Manufacturing Co. v. Crescent Textiles, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1963
  3. Murray v. MillerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  4. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1945
  5. Anderson v. SAVANNAH MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANYCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API