O.C.G.A. § 18-2-47 (2019)
List of all property of assignor at time of assignment; affidavits of assignor and assignee as to accuracy of list
Within 15 days after the recording of the assignment provided for in Code Section 18-2-43, the assignor shall, in connection with the assignee, prepare a full and complete list of all property of every kind, character, and description held, claimed, owned, or possessed by the assignor at the date of making such assignment, to which shall be attached the affidavit of the assignor that the list is true. The assignee shall also attach an affidavit that he has examined the books and other papers of the assignor, that he assisted in the preparation of the list as far as possible, and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief the list is correct. If he cannot make such affidavit, he shall state the reason therefor.
History
Ga. L. 1894, p. 90, § 7; Civil Code 1895,
§ 2704; Civil Code 1910, § 3237; Code 1933, § 28-308.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Ga. L. 188081, p. 174 and Ga. L. 1884-85, p. 100 have been included in the annotations for this Code section. Construction of Act. - Former Ga. L. 1880-81, p. 174 was remedial in nature and should be strictly construed against the assignor and assignee, and liberally in favor of the creditors. Turnipseed v. Schaefer, 76 Ga. 109, 1886 Ga. LEXIS 1 (1886) (decided under former Ga. L. 188081, p. 174). Effect of noncompliance. - Former Ga. L. 1880-81, p. 174 was mandatory and assignment by an insolvent debtor for the benefit of creditors is void and conveyed no title when no schedule or inventory was attached to the deed of assignment. Crittenden Bros. v. Coleman & Co., 70 Ga. 293, 1883 Ga. LEXIS 324 (1883); Crittenden Bros. v. Coleman & Co., 74 Ga. 331, 1884 Ga. LEXIS 378 (1884) (decided under former Ga. L. 1880-81, p. 174). Annexed schedules are not part of the contract. Birdseye v. Underhill, 82 Ga. 142, 7 S.E. 863, 1888 Ga. LEXIS 375 (1888) (decided under former Ga. L. 188081, p. 174). Specificity of schedules. - It is essential to rights of creditors that schedule of property assigned be made out specifi-
cally, so that it may be seen if assignment covers property sold by them, and whether, by reason of fraud in debtor, they can claim title thereto. Crittenden Bros. v. Coleman & Co., 70 Ga. 293, 1883 Ga. LEXIS 324 (1883) (decided under former Ga. L. 1880-81, p. 174). Inventory and schedule need not state values of property listed. - It is not essential to validity of deed of assignment that values should be affixed to items of property included in inventory and schedule thereto attached. Anthony v. Price & Maas, 92 Ga. 170, 17 S.E. 1024, 1893 Ga. LEXIS 37 (1893) (decided under former Ga. L. 1880-81, p. 174). Intention to defraud by material omissions from schedule. - See Wood & Lovingood v. Haynes, Henson & Co., 92 Ga. 180, 18 S.E. 47, 1893 Ga. LEXIS 38 (1893) (decided under former Ga. L. 188081, p. 174). Omission from schedule of property assigned of a right of redemption. - When one who made a voluntary assignment for the benefit of creditors omitted from schedule attached thereto the right of redemption which that person had in certain premises which the person conveyed for security of a debt, such omission was fatal to the assignment. McMillan v. Knapp, 76 Ga. 171, 1886 Ga. LEXIS 3 (1886) (decided under former Ga. L. 1880-81, p. 174).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Assignments for Benefit of Creditors, §§ 4, 5. ALR. Imputation of agent’s knowledge to bankrupt or to creditor as satisfying con-
ditions of provisions of Bankruptcy Act excepting unscheduled debts from discharge, 134 A.L.R. 185. Bankrupt’s right to object to allowance of claims, 64 A.L.R.2d 889.