Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Laws 1799, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 70; Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 25, § 5; Code 1863, § 3192; Code 1868, § 3203; Code 1873, § 3269; Code 1882, § 3269; Civil Code 1895, § 4515; Civil Code 1910, § 5060; Code 1933, § 8-114; Ga. L. 1980, p. 1065, § 4; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 18; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 3.)
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1868, § 3233, former Code 1873, § 3309, former Code 1882, § 3309, and former Code 1933, § 8-602, dealing with notice to the defendant, have been included in the annotations for this Code section.
- When the defendants were not personally served with notice of pendency of attachment, did not appear and defend, and did not give bond and security to replevy property attached, an in personam judgment against the defendants was accordingly erroneous. Broome v. Graham, 99 Ga. App. 682, 109 S.E.2d 824 (1959) (decided under former Code 1933, § 8-602).
- Written notice to the defendant that attachment was pending against the defendant stating the court to which attachment was returnable, and the time, and stating on what property attachment had been levied, was sufficient compliance with former Code 1868, § 3233 to authorize proceedings as in ordinary suit, especially if the defendant appeared and pleaded to the merits. Pool v. Perdue, 44 Ga. 454 (1871) (decided under former Code 1868, § 3233).
- If, pending attachment, the defendant dies, and the defendant's administrator was made party to the proceeding, and no notice was given, as provided by former Code 1873, § 3309, the administrator stood precisely as did the deceased defendant. The administrator may attack the validity of the attachment, and if the administrator's objection was good the whole proceeding fell. Ross v. Edwards, 52 Ga. 24 (1874) (decided under former Code 1873, § 3309).
- When nonresident defendants in attachment were given sufficient notice to put the defendants upon inquiry in time to have defended, but failed to do so, the supreme court will not control decision of presiding judge in refusing to allow the defendants to open judgment rendered in an attachment case for purpose of pleading to merits. Steers & Co. v. Morgan & Armstrong, 66 Ga. 552 (1881) (decided under former Code 1873, § 3309).
Plaintiff may entitle self to general judgment against defendant by giving prescribed notice. Sutton v. Gunn, 86 Ga. 652, 12 S.E. 979 (1891) (decided under former Code 1882, § 3309).
- General judgment of court without jurisdiction of particular class of attachments will not be valid against third persons although the judgment might be good against a defendant. First Nat'l Bank v. Ragan, 92 Ga. 333, 18 S.E. 295 (1893) (decided under former Code 1882, § 3309).
- Although notices of attachment were not signed by the plaintiff, plaintiff's attorney, or anyone as agent for the plaintiff, when the notices conveyed information required by statute and defendants were in no manner prejudiced by absence of a signature, the notice was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to judgment on the declaration filed as at common law. Stalvey v. Varn Motors & Fin. Co., 56 Ga. App. 696, 193 S.E. 627 (1937).
Cited in Cox v. Felder, 36 Ga. 597 (1867); Tharpe v. Foster, 52 Ga. 79 (1874); Bennett v. Wheatley, 154 Ga. 591, 115 S.E. 83 (1922); Gaston v. Jackson Nat'l Bank, 45 Ga. App. 106, 163 S.E. 265 (1932); Higgins v. Gosden, 53 Ga. App. 313, 185 S.E. 574 (1936); Stalvey v. Varn Motors & Fin. Co., 56 Ga. App. 696, 193 S.E. 627 (1937); Sassoon v. State, 138 Ga. App. 172, 225 S.E.2d 732 (1976); Johnson v. American Credit Co., 581 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1978).
No results found for Georgia Code 18-3-14.