O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-11-15 (2019)

Persons not subject to writ of possession

✓ 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

The writ of possession shall not issue against third persons who were not known in the action on which such writ of possession is founded nor against third persons who were not put in possession by and do not claim under or by virtue of any conveyance from the defendant in the action.

History

Laws 1811, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 511; Code 1863, § 3560; Code 1868, § 3583;

Code 1873, § 3638; Code 1882, § 3638; Civil Code 1895, § 5419; Civil Code 1910, § 6024; Code 1933, § 33-121.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Action against one of several possessors holding independently of one another. - Where an action for land is brought against one of several persons in possession, holding independently of each other, and it appears that neither claims under the other, the judgment, as a rule, will bind only the one who is a defendant in the action, and the others, not being parties, cannot be expelled, even though the action, the judgment, and the writ embrace the whole of the premises, and treat the defendant in the action as sole occupant. Injunction will lie to prevent its execution. Bethune v. Wilkins, 8 Ga. 118, 1850 Ga. LEXIS 21 (1850); Stokes v. Morrow, 54 Ga. 597, 1875 Ga. LEXIS 276 (1875); Jefferson v. Hartley, 81 Ga. 716, 9

S.E. 174, 1888 Ga. LEXIS 320 (1888); McSwain v. Ricketson, 129 Ga. 176, 58 S.E. 655, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 327 (1907); Browning v. Guest, 147 Ga. 400, 94 S.E. 234, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 213 (1917). Sheriff liable for removing person not named in writ. - If the sheriff, in executing a writ of possession, removes from the premises any person not mentioned in the writ and not within its legal operation according to O.C.G.A. § 44-1115, such removal amounts to official misconduct, and the sheriff is thereby subject to liability both personally and as regards the sheriff’s sureties. Jefferson v. Hartley, 81 Ga. 716, 9 S.E. 174, 1888 Ga. LEXIS 320 (1888).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 28A C.J.S., Ejectment, § 131 et seq.

ARTICLE 2 PROCEEDINGS AGAINST INTRUDERS RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Punitive damages for wrongful seizure

of chattel by one claiming security interest, 35 A.L.R.3d 1016.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2003–2003 · leading case: Hurt v. Norwest Mortg., Inc., 580 S.E.2d 580 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hurt v. Norwest Mortg., Inc., 580 S.E.2d 580 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “) OCGA § 44-11-15. 33 Jim West Housemovers v.”

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.