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: 904-383-7448Attachments may issue against nonresident corporations transacting business within the state under the same rules and regulations as are prescribed in relation to issuing attachments and garnishments in other cases.
(Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 25, § 33; Code 1863, § 3202; Code 1868, § 3213; Code 1873, § 3281; Code 1882, § 3281; Civil Code 1895, § 4527; Civil Code 1910, § 5072; Code 1933, § 8-108.)
This statute was cumulative and not restrictive of other attachment statutes; and nonresident corporation having property in this state is subject to attachment whether or not the corporation transacts business here. Pacific Selling Co. v. Albright-Prior Co., 3 Ga. App. 143, 59 S.E. 468 (1907).
- Attachment was unknown at common law, and should be strictly construed, especially as to nonresident debtors. Mitchell v. Union Bag & Paper Corp., 75 Ga. App. 15, 42 S.E.2d 137 (1947).
- Fact that Georgia court may have personal jurisdiction over a corporation does not mean it is not subject also to attachment, for this statute was intended to authorize attachment against a foreign corporation, even though the corporation might be sued in Georgia. Image Mills, Inc. v. Vora, 146 Ga. App. 196, 245 S.E.2d 882 (1978).
Whether doing business in this state or not, nonresident corporation is subject to attachment. Parramore v. Alexander, 132 Ga. 642, 64 S.E. 660 (1909).
- Affidavit is sufficient which alleges the defendant, though not incorporated in this state, transacts business here. Parramore v. Alexander, 132 Ga. 642, 64 S.E. 660 (1909).
Cited in Wilson v. Danforth, 47 Ga. 676 (1873); Selma, R. & D.R.R. v. Tyson, 48 Ga. 351 (1873); Mississippi Cent. R.R. Co. v. Plant, 58 Ga. 167 (1877); Schmidlapp & Co. v. La Confiance Ins. Co., 71 Ga. 246 (1883); Pacific Selling Co. v. Albright-Prior Co., 3 Ga. App. 143, 59 S.E. 468 (1907); Louisiana State Rice Milling Co. v. Mente & Co., 173 Ga. 1, 159 S.E. 497 (1931); Mitchell v. Union Bag & Paper Corp., 75 Ga. App. 15, 42 S.E.2d 137 (1947).
- Constitutionality of statute prescribing conditions of right of defendant in foreign attachment to appear and defend, 17 A.L.R. 884.
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.
Sufficiency of affidavit for attachment, respecting fraud or intent to defraud, as against objection that it is a mere legal conclusion, 8 A.L.R.2d 578.
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.
No results found for Georgia Code 18-3-7.