Case ID: ga_64/html/0608-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Warner, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hearn vs. Adamson.
    It is the duty of a garnishee in a justice court to answer a summons of garnishment served upon him within ten days. This duty is imposed upon him by law, whether the summons specifies that he shall answer within that time or not.
    Garnishment. Before Judge Buchanan. Carroll Superior Court. October Term, 1879.
    Adamson was a judgment creditor of one Snow. On December 2nd, 1878, he sued out summons of garnishment, which was served on Hearn the same day. This summons called upon Hearn to answer at the December term of the justice court. At the bottom of the summons was a “ P. S.,” without date or signature, notifying the garnishee to answer in ten days. The December term was on December 14th. On that day Hearn answered “not indebted.” Plaintiff moved to take judgmenc against him by default, because he did not answer in ten days. The motion was granted. On appeal to a jury they found for the garnishee. Plaintiff sued out a writ of certiorari. On the hearing it was sustained, and the garnishee excepted.
    Oscar Reese ; N. Shellnutt, by brief, for plaintiff in error,
    cited Code §§4139, 4161, 3536, 4162; 15 Ga., 186; 50 Ib., 575; 55 Ib., 410; 53 Ib., 28; 60 Ib., 554.
    Grow & Adamson, by H. C, Peeples, for defendant,
    cited Code, §4161; 55 Ga., 410.
   Warner, Chief Justice.

■ This case came before the court below on a certiorari from a justice court, on the hearing of which the court sustained the certiorari, and the defendant therein excepted.

It appears from thejrecord that the defendant in the cer Uorari had been served with a summons of garnishment in a justice court, but did not answer the same until after the expiration of ten days from the date of the service upon him, the summons not specifically requiring him to answer within ten days, though there was a postscript to the summons that he must answer in ten days, which was without date or signature.' On the appeal trial in the justice court the jury found a verdict in favor of the garnishee. The court sustained the certiorari on the ground that the verdict discharging the garnishee was contrary to law and the evidence.

There was no error in this ruling of the court. When the garnishee was served with the summons, the law made it his duty to answer it within ten days from the date of such service, and it was not necessary to state in the summons that he should answer within ten days. The mandate of the law was sufficient for that purpose, of which he was bound to take notice, and be governed by it. See Code, §4161.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.