Construction of attachment law.

- Attachment proceedings were unknown at common law and are to be strictly construed, especially as to nonresident debtors. Mills v. Findlay, 14 Ga. 230 (1853).

Rights of out-of-state creditors.

- In absence of statute or decision, the right to proceed by attachment is not limited to citizens or residents of the state, and "it is generally immaterial that the attaching creditor is a nonresident." Harmon v. Wiggins, 48 Ga. App. 469, 172 S.E. 847 (1934).

Debtor removing property out of state.

- Creditor's rights under paragraph (6) of former Civil Code 1910, § 5055 were not affected by the fact that the debtor has other property which might be subjected to the payment of the debtor's debts. Bush v. Dean, 17 Ga. App. 364, 86 S.E. 1075 (1915).

Absent allegations of property in Georgia, there was no basis for the issuance of a writ of attachment, although the defendants resided outside of Georgia. Ralls Corp. v. Huerfano River Wind, LLC, 27 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (N.D. Ga. 2014).

Plaintiff in attachment must prove demand before taking a judgment against attached property, although declaration in attachment sets forth demand in orderly and distinct paragraphs, consecutively numbered. Walden v. Barwick, 72 Ga. App. 508, 34 S.E.2d 551 (1945).

Remedy when in personam jurisdiction unavailable.

- When no jurisdiction is obtained over the debtor's person, the remedy is a proceeding in rem, in that it proceeds against property in custody of court and the judgment binds such property only; but when jurisdiction of debtor's person is obtained, either by personal service or appearance, proceeding is ordinarily in personam, and a personal judgment is rendered without regard to the attachment. Harmon v. Wiggins, 48 Ga. App. 469, 172 S.E. 847 (1934).

Applicability to corporate debtors.

- Corporation is an artificial person, and provisions of former Code 1933, § 8-101 were applicable to corporate debtor as well as to individual debtors. Lawrence v. Lee's Dep't Store, 48 Ga. App. 271, 172 S.E. 471 (1934).

Effect of codefendant.

- Defendant in attachment can be garnished as to a codefendant's property or money in the codefendant's hands. Kibbler v. James, 75 Ga. App. 852, 44 S.E.2d 910 (1947).

Applicability of § 18-3-4. - Provisions of former Code 1933, § 8-104 (see now O.C.G.A. § 18-3-4) were applicable to attachments under former Code 1933, § 8-101 (see now O.C.G.A. § 18-3-1). Threlkeld v. Whitehead, 95 Ga. App. 378, 98 S.E.2d 76 (1957).

Invocation of equitable remedies.

- Declaration in attachment may invoke equitable remedies and relief under former Civil Code 1910, § 5406 (see now O.C.G.A. § 23-3-1). Coral Gables Corp. v. Hamilton, 168 Ga. 182, 147 S.E. 494 (1929).

Cited in Levy v. Millman, 7 Ga. 167 (1849); Brown & Sanford v. McCluskey, 26 Ga. 577 (1858); Stowers v. Carter, 28 Ga. 351 (1859); Oliver v. Wilson, 29 Ga. 642 (1859); Irvin v. Howard, 37 Ga. 18 (1867); Mississippi Cent. R.R. Co. v. Plant, 58 Ga. 167 (1877); Brooks v. Hutchinson, 122 Ga. 838, 50 S.E. 926 (1905); Forrester v. Forrester, 155 Ga. 722, 118 S.E. 373 (1923); Dulion v. S.A. Lynch Enter. Fin. Corp., 53 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1931); Barnett v. Findley, 44 Ga. App. 610, 162 S.E. 288 (1932); Gaston v. Jackson Nat'l Bank, 45 Ga. App. 106, 163 S.E. 265 (1932); Isaac Silver & Bros. Co. v. Kalmon, 175 Ga. 244, 165 S.E. 434 (1932); Pere Marquette Ry. v. Tifton Produce Co., 48 Ga. App. 286, 172 S.E. 727 (1934); Grimmett v. Barnwell, 184 Ga. 461, 192 S.E. 191 (1937); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 196 Ga. 204, 26 S.E.2d 283 (1943); Irwin v. Griffin, 202 Ga. 456, 43 S.E.2d 687 (1947); Smith v. R.F. Brodegaard & Co., 77 Ga. App. 661, 49 S.E.2d 500 (1948); Tennessee-Virginia Constr. Co. v. Willingham, 115 Ga. App. 90, 153 S.E.2d 627 (1967); Multiple Realty, Inc. v. Walker, 119 Ga. App. 393, 167 S.E.2d 380 (1969); Reeves v. Motor Contract Co., 324 F. Supp. 1011 (N.D. Ga. 1971); Coursin v. Harper, 144 Ga. App. 4, 240 S.E.2d 565 (1977); Johnson v. American Credit Co., 581 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1978); Renfro Corp. v. McLarty Indus., Inc., 2 Bankr. 68 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1979).

Effect of nature of money demand.

- Attachment may issue when debtor resides out of state in all cases of money demands, whether arising ex contractu or ex delicto. Benefield v. Radiator Specialty Co., 116 Ga. App. 588, 158 S.E.2d 423 (1967).

Fact of nonresidence.

- Mere fact of nonresidence subjects one to attachment for one's debts under former Code 1873, § 3264. Charles v. Foster, 56 Ga. 612 (1876).

Fact of nonresidence subjects one to attachment, provided nonresidence is distinctly averred. DeLeon v. Heller, Hirsch & Co., 77 Ga. 740 (1886); Wilson v. Park View Sanitarium, 135 Ga. 471, 69 S.E. 741 (1910).

Applicability of paragraph (2).

- Paragraph (2) of former Code 1873, § 3264 was applicable to nonresident debtor passing through county with the debtor's goods. Johnson v. Lowry, 47 Ga. 560, 15 Am. R. 655 (1873).

Paragraph (2) of former Civil Code 1855, § 4510 was applicable to member of partnership failing to pay that partner's share of debts in dissolution; thus, other partner may institute attachment proceeding. Tucker v. Murphey, 114 Ga. 662, 40 S.E. 836 (1902).

Nonresident lessee of domestic corporation is subject to attachment. Breed v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533 (1873).

Proof under paragraph (2).

- Acts and intentions of defendant at time of attachment under paragraph (2) of former Code 1863, § 3188 must be shown. Louis Stix & Co. v. S. Pump & Co., 36 Ga. 526 (1867); Nicols v. Ward, 27 Ga. App. 501, 108 S.E. 832 (1921).

When intent to remove exists, chattel mortgage may be foreclosed prior to maturity. Perryman v. Pope, 102 Ga. 502, 31 S.E. 37 (1897).

Recitation as to joint indebtedness in affidavit.

- When both joint-debtors are nonresidents, affidavit of attachment need not recite that indebtedness is joint. Dobbs v. Justices of Inferior Court, 17 Ga. 624 (1855).

Attachment against nonresident, executed by levy.

- In case of attachment against nonresident debtor executed by levy, jurisdiction of a court of this state attaches by virtue of the seizure of property of such nonresident, and when the officer executing the levy seizes certain property as property of such nonresident debtor, and so makes the debtor's return to the court, it acquires such jurisdiction as will enable the court to proceed to judgment subjecting the debtor's interest in the property to the payment of the debt. Harmon v. Wiggins, 48 Ga. App. 469, 172 S.E. 847 (1934).

Only lien foreclosed in attachment against nonresident is that created by seizure of the property. Owens v. Atlanta Trust & Banking Co., 119 Ga. 924, 47 S.E. 215 (1904).

Plaintiff without perfect right to sue cannot proceed in attachment against nonresident but must resort to equity. Tennessee Fertilizer Co. v. Hand, 147 Ga. 588, 95 S.E. 81 (1918).

Whether one is about to remove must be shown by acts and conduct.

- Whether one is about to remove is a matter of intent, but it must be shown by acts and conduct. Patne v. Oliver, 96 Ga. App. 644, 101 S.E.2d 154 (1957).

Defendants commencing removal pending bill in equity.

- When, pending a bill in equity to collect indebtedness, defendants removed out of state and were proceeding to remove all of the defendants' property, attachment would lie in favor of the complainant. Epping v. Aiken, 71 Ga. 600 (1883).

Proof of removal under paragraph (6).

- Fact that one was causing something to be done under paragraph (6) was more than a matter of intent and some overt preparatory act at least should be taken to carry burden of proving this fact. Patne v. Oliver, 96 Ga. App. 644, 101 S.E.2d 154 (1957).

Burden of proving debtor removing "his property."

- Sixth ground enumerated in O.C.G.A. § 18-3-1 requires a showing that the defendant "is causing his property" to be removed, which places the burden upon the plaintiff to show the alleged debtor was removing "his property." Trax, Inc. v. Pentagon Aero-Marine Corp., 162 Ga. App. 276, 290 S.E.2d 196 (1982).

ALR.

- What constitutes nonresidence for purpose of attachment, 26 A.L.R. 180.

Action based on statute as one in which attachment will lie, 26 A.L.R. 563; 51 A.L.R. 1386.

Right of creditor to attach bankrupt's exempt property after discharge in bankruptcy, 55 A.L.R. 303.

Nature and extent of relief of successful intervenor or interpleader in attachment, 66 A.L.R. 908.

Property of incompetent or infant under guardianship as subject of execution, attachment, or garnishment, 92 A.L.R. 919.

Debtor's intent to defraud or delay creditors within contemplation of attachment statute as inferable as matter of law from fact that he has removed or is about to remove property from the state without making adequate provision for his creditors, 92 A.L.R. 966.

Foreign corporation as a nonresident for purposes of attachment law of the state in which it is doing business or is domesticated, 114 A.L.R. 1378.

Attachment as affected by release or modification of lien to which property was subject when attachment was levied, 128 A.L.R. 1392.

Right of creditors to reach, by garnishment or other process, commissions of debtor, as executor, administrator, or trustee, 143 A.L.R. 190.

Money or other property taken from prisoner as subject of attachment, garnishment, or seizure under execution, 154 A.L.R. 758.

Foreign attachment or garnishment as available in action by nonresident against nonresident or foreign corporation upon a foreign cause of action, 14 A.L.R.2d 420.

Joint bank account as subject to attachment, garnishment, or execution by creditor of one joint depositor, 86 A.L.R.5th 527.