Watt-Harley-Holmes Hardware Co. v. Day
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Garnishment, from city court of Douglas — Judge Eoan. January 28, 1907.
1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.
Watt-Harley-Holmes Hardware Company had a summons of garnishment served upon E. Y. L. Day. Day filed his answers to the summons, denying indebtedness, and the hardware company traversed the answer. These proceedings were had in the city court of Douglas, and it was agreed that the judge of that court, without the intervention of a jury, should try the issue formed by the traverse of the garnishee’s answer, on the following stipulation as to the facts: “That just before the time of the service of the summons of garnishment upon the said E. Y. L. Day, garnishee, that he owed the said Martha…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Graves v. . the American Exchange BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
3Cited by12 opinions
- Arnold, Matheny, Pa v. First Am. HoldingsSupreme Court of Florida · 2008
- McIntire v. RaskinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
- Edwards Bottling Works v. Jarnagin & WrightCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
- Hiatt v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Water Processing Co. v. ToporekCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.