Legal Opinion
Warner & Co. v. Burkhalter
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided March 14, 1918No. 9390PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Attachment and garnishment; from Tattnall superior court— Judge Sheppard. September 29, 1917.
1Opinion of the CourtBboyles, P. J.
1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is denied.(a) In the bill of exceptions, the brief of evidence, and the record sent up, there is enough to enable this court to decide the questions raised.
2. A judgment against a garnishee, duly entered, is as to him conclusive of the proposition that the plaintiff had already obtained a valid judgment against the main debtor whose effects were sought to be reached by the garnishment proceeding. And this is true in a case where an attachment has been issued against a non-resident and executed by service of summons of garnishment, and where no…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Albright-Pryor Co. v. Pacific Selling Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Holbrook & Co. v. Evansville & Terre Haute RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Warner & Co. v. StricklandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pope v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1942
- Donaldson v. Tripod Paint Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- Rowe v. Peoples Credit Clothing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1927
- Brumbelow Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Atlanta Furniture Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1928