Legal Opinion

Bailey v. Kennett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 24, 1924No. 15363PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

1. The term of a court to which an attachment should be returnable is determined by the date of the issuance of the attachment, where it is followed by a timely seizure. There is no law in this State requiring the execution and return of the writ' to be made by the levying officer for any particular time before the return term specified in the writ. Where an attachment was issued on April 12, 1923, returnable to a term of the superior court convening on the third Monday in May thereafter, which was May 21, and a seizure was made and the writ returned by the levying officer on May 2, the May…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gunn v. TackettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1881
  2. Crawford v. HowardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
  3. Stephens v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
  4. Watters & Co. v. O'NeillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921
  5. Thorpe v. ButtSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Nix v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
  2. Universal Match Corp. v. HendricksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
  3. Walton v. HinesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API