Few v. Pou (1924)

"Where, therefore, a plaintiff in garnishment in a city court would not be entitled to recover against the garnishee, under his traverse of the garnishee’s answer, except by the application of a purely equitable rule applicable only in equitable proceedings or money rules, the plaintiff cannot prevail.” Few v. Pou, supra, p. 625.

Evidence in behalf of the defendant tended to show that this was the only control which it ever exercised over the property, that there was never any agreement for the grantee to take over the actual possession and control of the property, and that the grantor retained possession and control thereof at all times.” See Few v. Pou, 32 Ga.App. 620, 627 , 124 S.E. 372, 375 (Div. 2, 1924).

Few v. Pou, 32 Ga. App. 620, 625 ( 124 SE 372 ); Arnold v. Citizens &c.

Especially is it true that equitable rules cannot be applied to garnishments tried in city courts or other courts with only' common-law jurisdiction.” Few v. Pou, 32 Ga. App. 620, 624 ( 124 S. E. 372 ).

Jones v. Glover, supra; Few v. Pou, 32 Ga. App. 620, 630 ( 124 S. E. 372 ) ; Brown Guano Co. v. Bridges, 34 Ga. App. 652, 657 ( 130 S. E. 695 ).

Few v. Pou, 32 Ga. App. 620, 624 ( 124 S. E. 372 ); Western & Atlantic R.

See also Few v. Pou, 32 Ga.App. 620 , 124 S.E. 372 (1924) (Court, in absence of an assignment of rents, focused upon possession to determine right to rents among competing claimants). 9 .