Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448In all cases where the plaintiff has commenced an action for the recovery of a debt and the defendant, during the pendency of such action, shall become subject to attachment, the plaintiff may have an attachment against the defendant; and all the proceedings in relation to the same shall be as prescribed in relation to attachments where no action is pending. A satisfaction of the judgment in the common-law action shall satisfy the judgment in attachment, and a satisfaction of the judgment in attachment shall satisfy the judgment in the common-law action.
(Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 25, § 28; Code 1863, § 3201; Code 1868, § 3212; Code 1873, § 3280; Code 1882, § 3280; Civil Code 1895, § 4526; Civil Code 1910, § 5071; Code 1933, § 8-104.)
- For article discussing Sniadach v. Family 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 article discussing Georgia's long arm statute, prejudgment attachment and habeas corpus, with respect to judicial developments in practice and procedure in the fifth circuit, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 925 (1979).
Suit in attachment is separate and distinct from a common law action; and failure to number and document them separately is error on part of clerk. Dollar v. Fred W. Amend Co., 184 Ga. 432, 191 S.E. 696 (1937).
Former Code 1933, § 8-104 (see now O.C.G.A. § 18-3-4) was 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).
Pending action with bail in superior court, plaintiff may take out attachment on same demand returnable to inferior court. Wood v. Carter, 29 Ga. 580 (1859).
Filing of declaration claiming damages was commencement of action for purposes of former Code 1863, § 3201 (see now O.C.G.A. § 18-3-4), though the defendant was not yet served. Graves v. Strozier, 37 Ga. 32 (1867).
- When attachment is sued out against the defendant in a pending common-law action, payment by the defendant to the sheriff of the principal, interest, and costs upon the attachment in order to relieve the defendant's property from seizure does not discharge the defendant from any additional liability to which the defendant might have been subject in the original action. Johnson & Son v. Friedman-Shelby Shoe Co., 15 Ga. App. 561, 83 S.E. 969 (1914).
Cited in Heath v. Bates, 70 Ga. 633 (1883); Donaldson v. Tripod Paint Co., 43 Ga. App. 3, 158 S.E. 640 (1931); Sheehan v. Ruben, 83 Ga. App. 336, 63 S.E.2d 605 (1951); Crawford v. Sumerau, 101 Ga. App. 32, 112 S.E.2d 682 (1960).
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1931-06-12
Citation: 172 Ga. 904, 159 S.E. 286, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 238
Snippet: trial it appeared that the real contention was over 18-3/4 acres out of the 40 described in the petition.