DeLongchamp v. J. W. Hicks & Co.
Supreme Court of Georgia
Rule against Sheriff, from Floyd county. Decision by Judge Hammond, at August Term, 1857. J. W. Hicks & Co. instituted suit against Ferdinand De-Xiongchamp, and pending suit required bail of him; and at the August Term, 1856, recovered judgment for $90 33, besides cost. Upon this judgment a fi. fa. issued and a return thereon made by the Sheriff, of “ no property.” Application was made after judgment, for summons of garnishment, and Daniel S. Printup served with a copy.
Read the full summary
Rule against Sheriff, from Floyd county. Decision by Judge Hammond, at August Term, 1857. J. W. Hicks & Co. instituted suit against Ferdinand De-Xiongchamp, and pending suit required bail of him; and at the August Term, 1856, recovered judgment for $90 33, besides cost. Upon this judgment a fi. fa. issued and a return thereon made by the Sheriff, of “ no property.” Application was made after judgment, for summons of garnishment, and Daniel S. Printup served with a copy. The garnishment against Printup was subsequently dismissed, and Hicks & Co. moved for a rule against the Sheriff to show…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.
delivering the opinion.
The plaintiff in error in this case, Ferdinand DeLongchamp, was arrested upon bail process; and having deposited the amount of the debt with one C. H. Smith, the Deputy Sheriff failed and neglected to take bond from the defendant to answer the debt; but took Smith’s bond to indemnify and save him harmless; provided the debt was recovered. Afterwards D. S. Printup took up Smith’s obligation and substituted his own in its place.
*202Right here, we beg leave to say, that while we doubt not that the interposition of the friends of DeLongchamp was prompted…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Griner v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Edwards v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
- Houston v. HowellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927
- First Joint Stock Land Bank v. PittsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934