Cunningham v. Lamar
Supreme Court of Georgia
Garnishment. Amendment. Partnership. Before Judge Ci-iisolm. City Court of Savannah. July Term, 1873. Process of garnishment issued on a suit in favor of Cunningham, assignee, against Albert R. Lamar, and was served upon Beard & Kimball. The garnishees answered, denying indebtedness, etc. The answer was traversed. Judgment was obtained against the defendant.
Read the full summary
Garnishment. Amendment. Partnership. Before Judge Ci-iisolm. City Court of Savannah. July Term, 1873. Process of garnishment issued on a suit in favor of Cunningham, assignee, against Albert R. Lamar, and was served upon Beard & Kimball. The garnishees answered, denying indebtedness, etc. The answer was traversed. Judgment was obtained against the defendant. Upon the trial of the aforesaid traverse, counsel for defendant moved to dismiss the garnishment proceedings because the bond was signed by Cunningham, as assignee, as principal, and by him, in the name of the firm of Claghorn <&…
1Opinion of the Court
Trippe, Judge.
There can be no doubt that one partner cannot, of his own authority, bind the partnership by signing the firm name to a bond which is necessary in suing out a legal process for himself in some individual suit of his own, nor indeed in actions in favor'of any persons except the firm. Where it is in behalf of the firm, special power so to sign is given by the Code. And without the proof offered in this case, the garnishment bond would have been a nullity in so far as it wanted security. It is claimed by defendant in error that although Claghorn, the other party, authorized and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Merchants & Farmers Bank v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
- Watkins v. HarrisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
- Reeves v. ReevesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Chiles v. City of AtlantaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935