Case ID: ga_95/html/0108-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Atkinson, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Read v. Williams, for use, etc.
    Where an attachment, which had been levied upon live stock, was afterwards dismissed because no declaration had been filed as required by law, the levying officer had no legal right to sell the animals to reimburse himself for the expenses of keeping them, and it was error for the court to so order upon his application. Under section 3696 of the code, the expenses of keeping the animals were a part of the costs of the case, for which the party who prevailed in the action was not liable. The levying officer should look for his reimbursement to the attachment bond, one of the conditions of which made the plaintiff in attachment and his surety liable for the costs, in the event the former failed to recover.
    November 12, 1894.
    Petition. Before Judge Van Epps. City court of Atlanta. March term, 1894.
    Frazer & Hynds, for plaintiff in error.
    Calhoun, King & Spalding, contra.
    
   Atkinson, Justice.

The issue involved in this case being controlled by the principles declared in the case of Ward v. Barnes, sheriff, et al., decided at this term, no opinion or statement of facts, further than as stated in the head-notes, is necessary. Judgment reversed.