Case ID: ga_94/html/0672-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Perryman, administrator, v. Pope.
    1. It was not error to charge the jury in addition to section 2637 of the code, or as preliminary to giving that section in charge, that a threat on the part of the creditor (to whom the note in suit was made payable), or his attorney, to resort to law, would not amount to duress, the only threat disclosed by the evidence being one to levy on the debtor’s property.
    2. When an attachment case comes on for trial and there is a pending traverse of the ground of attachment, not previously disposed of for the term by continuance or otherwise, the whole case should be tried together; and it is error for the court to exclude legal and competent evidence offered by the defendant to establish the truth of his traverse, the exclusion being rested on the theory that the ground of attachment was not open to traverse after the property attached had been replevied. As was ruled in Brumby v. Bickoff, this term (ante, 429), the right of traverse is not lost or affected by replevy.
    August 6, 1894.
    Attachment. Before Judge Harris. Coweta superior court. October term, 1893.
    Reese & Grow and Reid & Stewart, for plaintiff in error. Adamson & Jackson, contra.
    
   Judgment reversed.