O.C.G.A. § 18-3-30 (2019)
Duty of officer to whom attachment directed generally and regarding property removed from county
It shall be the duty of any one of the officers to whom an attachment is directed to levy the attachment upon real or personal property of the defendant which is necessary to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff and which may be found in the county of which he is an officer. It shall be the duty of any one of the officers to whom an attachment is directed, where the defendant has removed his property beyond the limits of the county in which the attachment is issued and returnable, to follow the property into any county of the state, levy the attachment upon such property of the defendant which is necessary to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff, and return the property to the county in which the attachment is returnable.
History
Laws 1799, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 70; Laws 1841, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 87; Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 25, § 10; Code 1863, § 3206; Code 1868, § 3217; Code 1873, § 3284; Code 1882, § 3284; Civil Code 1895, § 4530; Civil Code 1910, § 5075; Code 1933, § 8-201.
Annotations
Law reviews. For article discussing Sniadach v. Fam-
ily Fin. Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S. Ct. 1820, 23 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1969) in relation to former Georgia law on prejudgment garnishment, see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 495 (1970). For comment on Reeves v. Motor Contract Co., 324 F. Supp. 1011 (N.D. Ga. 1971), see 23 Mercer L. Rev. 369 (1972).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Presumption in favor of officer. - Absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that an officer did the officer’s duty and did not exceed the officer’s authority under this statute. Connolly v. Atlantic Contracting Co., 120 Ga. 213, 47 S.E. 575, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 511 (1904). Failure to state where levy was made. - When return of an officer on levy of attachment fails to show in what county the levy was made, but the levy is
in other respects legal and regular, failure to set out where levy was made is not ground for dismissal. Connolly v. Atlantic Contracting Co., 120 Ga. 213, 47 S.E. 575, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 511 (1904). Levy by sheriff of attachment which should properly be levied by a constable is invalid. Pearce & Renfroe v. Renfroe Bros., 68 Ga. 194, 1881 Ga. LEXIS 350 (1881).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Escrow accounts of real estate brokers are not subject to attachment when broker is defendant inasmuch as money in such accounts is not property of the broker
nor does it constitute a debt free from contingencies. 1972 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 72-1.
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Levy upon or garnishment of contents of safety deposit box, 39 A.L.R. 1215. Replevin for bank account, 44 A.L.R. 1522. Contingent remainder as subject to levy and sale by creditor, 60 A.L.R. 803. Interest of vendee under conditional sales contract as subject to attachment, garnishment, or execution, 61 A.L.R. 781. Liability of sheriff or other officer executing process of execution or attachment for failure to seize sufficient property, 93 A.L.R. 316. Maintainability of replevin or similar
possessory action where defendant, at time action is brought, is no longer in possession of property, 97 A.L.R. 896. Bank deposit as subject of garnishment for debt of depositor as affected by previous acts by bank in relation to deposit, 107 A.L.R. 697. Joint bank account as subject to attachment, garnishment, or execution by creditor of one of the joint depositors, 11 A.L.R.3d 1465. Potential liability of insurer under liability policy as subject of attachment, 33 A.L.R.3d 992.
Liquor license as subject to execution or attachment, 40 A.L.R.4th 927.