O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 18-3-4 (2019)

Attachment after action commenced; effect of judgment on pending action

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In 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 commonlaw action.

History

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.

Annotations

Law reviews. 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).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS 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 Ga. LEXIS 552 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 810, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 967 (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 Ga. LEXIS 387 (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 Ga. LEXIS 126 (1867). Effect upon pending action of payment of costs of attachment. - 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 329 (1914).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1994–2014 · leading case: Ralls Corp. v. Huerfano River Wind, LLC, 27 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (N.D. Ga. 2014).
Ralls Corp. v. Huerfano River Wind, LLC, 27 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (N.D. Ga. 2014). · cites it 2× “Should discovery unearth property of Defendants in Georgia, Ralls may seek a writ of attachment in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 18-3-4. Accordingly, count six will be dismissed without' prejudice.”
Mitsubishi Int'l Corp. v. Cardinal Textile Sales, Inc., 14 F.3d 1507 (11th Cir. 1994). “O.C.G.A. § 18-3-4 provides that: In 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…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.