Denial of rule.

- Otherwise summary remedy of a rule nisi is not available in an action to collect funds allegedly withheld by an attorney if the attorney answers the complaint in writing and effectively denies the complaint's allegations. West v. Haupt, 163 Ga. App. 907, 296 S.E.2d 723 (1982).

Formal attack unnecessary if insufficiency of answer absolute.

- While it is not improper procedure to file a motion to strike an answer demanding a jury trial when it shows no issuable fact, this section does not require such a formal attack when the insufficiency of the answer itself authorizes a rule absolute. Wilkins v. Jordan, 50 Ga. App. 119, 177 S.E. 344 (1934).

Specific, undenied answer precludes hearing of testimony.

- Hearing of testimony is erroneous absent a denial of a sheriff's answer if the answer sets forth specific facts constituting meritorious matters of defense which tend to prevent the issuance of a rule absolute. Wilkins v. Jordan, 50 Ga. App. 119, 177 S.E. 344 (1934).

Limit of 18 months for exceptions to sufficiency of rule nisi.

- Exceptions to the sufficiency of a rule nisi against sheriff taken upon the trial 18 months after the filing of the rule are too late. Thompson v. Central Bank, 9 Ga. 413 (1851).

Rule nisi may be entered nunc pro tunc.

- When there has been an omission to enter a rule nisi against the sheriff upon the minutes at the time it was taken, it may be afterwards entered nunc pro tunc. Brannon v. Central Bank, 18 Ga. 361 (1855).

Absent allegation warranting action, rule nisi to be issued.

- If sheriff is made party to action seeking to compel sheriff and defendant to show cause why sheriff should accept an affidavit of illegality and why the affidavit should not be dismissed, but if there is neither an allegation that the sheriff is about to fail in the performance of the sheriff's official duty nor that demand for any official action has been made to the sheriff nor that the sheriff is about to commit any unwarranted or illegal act, the allegations and prayers do not make out an action either in mandamus or prohibition, but merely ask the court to issue a rule nisi for the sought after action. Spence v. Miller, 176 Ga. 96, 167 S.E. 188 (1932).

Sheriff liable in contempt for process issued in another county.

- While it has been held that "a petition for a rule against the sheriff of a city court for failure to make proper returns of money received by the sheriff from the sale of property under an execution issued from and returnable to the city court will not lie in the superior court unless there is a prayer for special equitable relief" the rules in those cases were issued against the sheriff of the city court acting within the sheriff's own county and in the sheriff's capacity as an officer of the city court under process made returnable to that court; and these rulings would not have application if the process was sent for execution outside of the county in which it was issued and was delivered to the sheriff of another county, who, as an officer of the superior court of the sheriff's own county, acted under the court's supervision and was subject to the court's authority and, under former Code 1933, § 24-210 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-13-5), was liable to its attachment for contempt for failure to perform properly the sheriff's duties and functions as sheriff of the sheriff's own county. Pyles v. Keels, 50 Ga. App. 490, 178 S.E. 412 (1935).

Erroneous amount to be executed.

- This section authorizes proceeding if execution was issued by clerk contrary to terms of judgment and was paid by the defendant in fieri facias and marked satisfied by the clerk; court has the power to have the clerk recall such an execution and offer to refund the money paid to the clerk by the defendant in fieri facias. Miller Serv., Inc. v. Miller, 77 Ga. App. 413, 48 S.E.2d 761 (1948).

Cited in Butler v. Tattnall Bank, 140 Ga. 579, 79 S.E. 456 (1913); Crawford County Bank v. Britt-Hightower Co., 17 Ga. App. 804, 88 S.E. 691 (1916); Gaston v. Shunk Plow Co., 161 Ga. 287, 130 S.E. 580 (1925).

Constable may be ruled for contempt in superior or magistrate court.

- Constable failing to pay over any money coming into the constable's possession may be ruled for contempt either in superior court or in the justice of the peace (now magistrate) court. 1952-53 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 33.