Legal Opinion

Chance v. Simpkins

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 9, 1918No. 9119PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Money rule; from Richmond superior court—Judge H. C. Hammond. May 30,1917.

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, J.

Where funds have been paid into court under an order requiring their deposit with its clerk to await their final distribution, the funds while so held are in custodia legis, and therefore not subject to the process of garnishment. 20 Cyc. 1022 (1,2). The fact that the parties interested may have consented to the order of court will not alter the rule; nor will the fact that prior to the service of the process of garnishment the right to the funds had been fixed and determined by another judgment providing for their distribution. Cowart v. Caldwell Co., 134 Ga. 544, 548 (68 S. E. 500, 30 L. R.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Field v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
  2. Cowart v. Caldwell Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1910
  3. Bird v. HarrisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1879

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Anderson v. ChambersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API