Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726; former Civil Code 1910, § 5292; former Code 1933, § 46-101; and former O.C.G.A. §§ 18-4-110 and18-4-111 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Applicability of section.

- Former provisions applied when there had been trial of issues on traverse to garnishee's answer. Fagan v. Jackson & Orme, 1 Ga. App. 24, 57 S.E. 1052 (1907) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726); South Ga. Grocery Co. v. Wade Chambers Grocery Co., 12 Ga. App. 213, 77 S.E. 6 (1913) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5292).

Judgment rendered in foreign jurisdiction.

- Summons of garnishment cannot legally issue upon judgment rendered in a foreign jurisdiction. Allman v. Hardee, Barovick, Konecky & Braun, 152 Ga. App. 551, 263 S.E.2d 489 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-101).

Judgment against defendant must be capable of present enforcement, and not an oral judgment. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Brown, 3 Ga. App. 561, 60 S.E. 319 (1908) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726).

Judgment must be introduced in evidence, although the garnishee and the plaintiff agree that the claim is a proceeding upon judgment. Mitchell v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 7 Ga. App. 824, 68 S.E. 343 (1910) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726).

Discharge in bankruptcy will prevent rendition of judgment against the defendant and sureties on dissolution bond. A. Klipstein & Co. v. Allen-Miles Co., 136 F. 385 (5th Cir. 1905) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726).

Joint judgment against defendant and garnishee is void as to latter. Dent v. Dent, 118 Ga. 853, 45 S.E. 680 (1903);(decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726).

Joint judgment cannot by amendment be converted into separate judgments. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Brown, 3 Ga. App. 561, 60 S.E. 319 (1908) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726).

Only employers subject to continuing garnishment.

- Purpose of former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-110 was to ensure that only employers will be subject to continuing garnishment and that nonemployer garnishees will be automatically discharged with regard to the continuing aspect of the action; however, the section does not purport to discharge a nonemployer garnishee from such general garnishment liability as existed at time original answer was filed. Melnick v. Fund Mgt., Inc., 172 Ga. App. 773, 324 S.E.2d 595 (1984) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-110).

Restitution order was a money judgment for purposes of continuing garnishment under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-110. Cameron v. Pickering, 219 Ga. App. 877, 467 S.E.2d 210 (1996) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-110).

Garnishment action properly allowed.

- Trial court did not err by allowing a garnishment action to proceed because the garnishor was not pursuing a reverse-piercing claim, or any other equitable action, against the garnishee; rather, the action arose from a garnishment action expressly authorized by law. Carrier411 Servs. v. Insight Tech., Inc., 322 Ga. App. 167, 744 S.E.2d 356 (2013) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-110).

Garnished funds as property of debtor's bankruptcy estate.

- Funds in the amount of $475.86 which a debtor's employer remitted to a Georgia magistrate court after the debtor's landlord filed a garnishment action to collect unpaid rent were property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 because the magistrate court still held the funds at the time the debtor declared bankruptcy; although the courts were divided on the issue of whether funds that were paid to a state court under Georgia's garnishment statute were property of a debtor's bankruptcy estate, the better rule was that a judgment defendant in a Georgia garnishment proceeding retained title to wages garnished from the defendant and deposited into the registry of the garnishment court until such wages were distributed by the court. Shubert v. Murray (In re Shubert), 525 Bankr. 536 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2015) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-110).

Unpaid retirement benefits not subject to garnishment.

- Retirement benefits paid into registry of trial court by garnishee were not subject to garnishment because the defendant never received actual possession of benefits. Birchfield v. Birchfield, 165 Ga. App. 101, 299 S.E.2d 409 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-111).

Garnishment subject to bankruptcy stay.

- Clearly all debts owed by the garnishees to the debtor and all property, money, or effects of the debtor in possession or control of the garnishees at the time of service of the summons of continuing garnishment are portions of the estate of the debtor so that garnishment proceedings directed at these assets are subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 (bankruptcy). Stone v. George F. Richardson, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 232, 312 S.E.2d 339 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-111).

Independent liability of the garnishees arises when the garnishees are no longer in possession due to some arrangement between the defendant and the garnishees after the date of the service of the summons of continuing garnishment upon the garnishees, designed to defeat the lien of such garnishment. Stone v. George F. Richardson, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 232, 312 S.E.2d 339 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-111).

Garnished funds as property of debtor's bankruptcy estate.

- Funds in the amount of $475.86 which a debtor's employer remitted to a Georgia magistrate court after the debtor's landlord filed a garnishment action to collect unpaid rent were property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 because the magistrate court still held the funds at the time the debtor declared bankruptcy; although courts were divided on the issue of whether funds that were paid to a state court under Georgia's garnishment statute were property of a debtor's bankruptcy estate, the better rule was that a judgment defendant in a Georgia garnishment proceeding retained title to wages garnished from the debtor and deposited into the registry of the garnishment court until such wages were distributed by the court. Shubert v. Murray (In re Shubert), 525 Bankr. 536 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2015) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-111).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 2, 69 et seq., 326 et seq. 31 Am. Jur. 2d, Exemptions, § 277.

C.J.S.

- 38 C.J.S., Garnishment, §§ 1 et seq., 110, 140 et seq.