Loyless v. Hodges Bros.
Supreme Court of Georgia
Bailment. Garnishment. Before Judge Harrell. Terrell Superior Court. May Term, 1871. Hodges Brothers had a claim against one Mann, and garnisheed Loyless. He answered that he neither owed Mann anything, nor had any property or effects of his in his hands when he was garnisheed. This answer was traversed.
Read the full summary
Bailment. Garnishment. Before Judge Harrell. Terrell Superior Court. May Term, 1871. Hodges Brothers had a claim against one Mann, and garnisheed Loyless. He answered that he neither owed Mann anything, nor had any property or effects of his in his hands when he was garnisheed. This answer was traversed. On the trial, Loyless swore that he had a store, which he controlled exclusively, and that, by his permission, Mann left iu it a box nailed up, the contents of which he did not know j that when Mann put them there, he told Mann that he would not be responsible for them in any way. They were…
1Opinion of the Court
McCay, Judge.
Our law, Code, section 3226, requires the garnishee to answer what he is indebted to the defendant, or what effects of his he has in hand, or had at the service of the summons. Was not this box and its contents m store with the garnishee. True, he held it without risk, but it was none the less in his charge. He would have been liable for gross neglect, had any damage come to it. There are, it is true, some cases where sealed and unbroken packages, left as this was, have been held not to make the holder subject to garnishment. But it will be found that they turn mainly on the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Trainer v. SaundersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Tillinghast v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1912
- Western Railroad v. Thornton & AceeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1878
- Toporek v. Water Processing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1983