Tucker v. Butts
Supreme Court of Georgia
Garnishment, in Baldwin Superior Court, February Term, 1849. Decided by Judge Merriwetiier. Harper Tucker, as assignee of a judgment in favor of the Central Bank against Frederick Butts, issued a summons of garnishment, directed to Messrs. Harris & Day, practising attorneys at law. Seaton G. Day, one of the garnishees, in his return stated, that he had in his hands the sum of $185 09, collected by him as the attorney at law of Frederick Butts.
Read the full summary
Garnishment, in Baldwin Superior Court, February Term, 1849. Decided by Judge Merriwetiier. Harper Tucker, as assignee of a judgment in favor of the Central Bank against Frederick Butts, issued a summons of garnishment, directed to Messrs. Harris & Day, practising attorneys at law. Seaton G. Day, one of the garnishees, in his return stated, that he had in his hands the sum of $185 09, collected by him as the attorney at law of Frederick Butts. Upon this return the counsel for plaintiff in ji. fa. moved to enter up judgment against the garnishee; which motion the Court refused to grant, on the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.
delivering the opinion.
[1.] Is an attorney at law subject to process of garnishment ] The words of the Statute, it is conceded, are sufficiently broad to comprehend attorneys. It authorizes a summons to issue in behalf of the creditor against “ any person who may be indebted to the defendant, or who may have any money, effects, property, real or personal, or any bonds, notes or other evidences of debt whatsoever, in his, her or their hands, belonging to the defendant.” Prince, 37.
It is insisted, however, that an attorney is exempt, because he is an officer of the law;…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Coburn v. AnsartMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by3 opinions
- Water Processing Co. v. Southern Golf Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1981
- Water Processing Co. v. ToporekCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
- Investment Research Institute, Inc. v. Sherbank Marketing, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1998