Watkins v. Pope
Supreme Court of Georgia
Attachment and garnishment. Before Judge Parrott. Fulton Superior Court. October Term, 1868. Pope sued out attachment against E. H. Williams, and had Watkins garnisheed, on the 30th of March, 1867. Pope afterwards had judgment against Williams. Watkins answered, denying that he owed Williams, or had any of his property. This answer was traversed.
Read the full summary
Attachment and garnishment. Before Judge Parrott. Fulton Superior Court. October Term, 1868. Pope sued out attachment against E. H. Williams, and had Watkins garnisheed, on the 30th of March, 1867. Pope afterwards had judgment against Williams. Watkins answered, denying that he owed Williams, or had any of his property. This answer was traversed. It was agreed that this issue should be decided by Judge Parrott, (presiding for Judge Pope, the plaintiff,) and that a verdict should be taken under his direction. The other facts submitted to Judge Parrott, as agreed upon by counsel, were these: On…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCay, J.
The written contract between Williams and Watkins reveals the following transaction:
Williams sells to Watkins a certain “stock” of goods in a store-house in Atlanta, and Watkins agrees to pay for them by paying a certain debt of $500 to William Solomon, due by Williams, to which Watkins was security; second, by paying the debts Williams owed for the “ stock,” estimated at $1,500.
Within ten days after this sale, Mr. Pope garnishees Watkins, and it is contended that he is entitled to a judgment on 'the ground that Watkins is indebted to Williams $1,500 00. We think not.
The mode of payment was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Coleman & Carroll v. Hatcher & BrannonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Wt Harvey Lumber Company v. Jm Wells Lumber Company, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
- Bluthenthal & Bickart v. SilvermanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Martin v. CopelandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- Powell, Brother & Co. v. Kelly Bros. & PorterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889