Spain v. Clements
Supreme Court of Georgia
Garnishment. Bonds. Principal and surety. Damages. Officers. Before Judge Harden. Chatham Superior Court. February Term, 1879. To the report contained in the opinion it is only necessary to add that the following were among the grounds of the motion for new trial: (1.) Because the court allowed an amendment to be made to the record in the garnishment case of Spain, administrator, vs. Dutenhofer et' al. [Counsel for plaintiffs insisted that a motion had been made to enter up…
Read the full summary
Garnishment. Bonds. Principal and surety. Damages. Officers. Before Judge Harden. Chatham Superior Court. February Term, 1879. To the report contained in the opinion it is only necessary to add that the following were among the grounds of the motion for new trial: (1.) Because the court allowed an amendment to be made to the record in the garnishment case of Spain, administrator, vs. Dutenhofer et' al. [Counsel for plaintiffs insisted that a motion had been made to enter up judgment on the garnishment bond against Dutenhofer, as principal, and his wife as security, that it was resisted and…
1ConcurrenceBleckley, Justice
This court has held that only a statutory bond will dissolve a garnishment. 55 Ga., 67. In order for there to be a statutory bond, there must also be security. Code, §3540. As a married woman cannot bind herself by any contract of suretyship (Code, §1783; 59 Ga., 254), a bond with no security but a married woman, is a bond with no security at all, and is therefore no statutory bond. It follows that the garnishment in the present case was not legally dissolved ; and if this had appealed on the face of the papers, the damage, if any, would have been to the garnishees, and not to the plaintiffs.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Saulsbury, Respess & Co. v. WeaverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877
- Moore, Jenkins & Co. v. AllenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1875