Casey v. L. M. Wiley & Co.
Supreme Court of Georgia
Attachment, money rule, in Muscogee Superior Court, tried before Judge Alexander, May term, 1848. The money was brought into Court, under and by virtue of divers attachments, against one Nathan Lichton, one of which attachments was in favor of the plaintiff in error, and another in favor of the defendant in error, and both claiming the money. There were other attachments claiming said money, but no controversy or issue was made in respect of them.
Read the full summary
Attachment, money rule, in Muscogee Superior Court, tried before Judge Alexander, May term, 1848. The money was brought into Court, under and by virtue of divers attachments, against one Nathan Lichton, one of which attachments was in favor of the plaintiff in error, and another in favor of the defendant in error, and both claiming the money. There were other attachments claiming said money, but no controversy or issue was made in respect of them. It appeared, if the attachment of the defendant in error, Wiley,- should recovei its full amount, that the attachment in favor of the plaintiff in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Warner, J.
delivering the opinion.
When an attachment issues under the attachment law of 1799, it may be levied on the estate of the debtor, and be returnable to the next Court to be held in and for the county, in which the debt- or’s estate, or property may be foúnd, and the levying officer is required to advertise such levy at the Court-House, in said county, at least thirty days before the sitting of the Court and if any attachment shall be issued within thirty days of the next Court, such attachment shall be made returnable to the Court next after the expiration of said thirty…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Arnold v. HallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883