Case Name: FAGAN v. JACKSON & ORME
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1907-01-11
Citations: 1 Ga. App. 24
Docket Number: 17
Parties: FAGAN v. JACKSON & ORME.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 24–25

Head Matter:
17.
FAGAN v. JACKSON & ORME.
1. When on the trial of an issue formed by the answer of a garnishee and a traverse of the same by a plaintiff, who caused the summons to issue on an affidavit that the defendant was indebted to him on a judgment duly rendered, there was no evidence showing the rendition of such judgment, it was error for the trial court to render judgment'in favor of the plaintiff against the garnishee for an amount found to be due by the garnishee to the defendant. In the trial of such a.n issue it is indispensable to a judgment against the garnishee that the plaintiff shall show that he obtained a judgment against the defendant. The judge of the superior court did not err, therefore, in sustaining the certiorari, it appearing that the judgment of the justice’s court against the garnishee was rendered without it being made to appear that there was in existence a judgment against the defendant.
2. This case is clearly distinguishable from Morrison v. Bilburn, 126 Ga. 114.
Certiorari, from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. January 17, 1906.
Argued January 9,
Decided January 11, 1907.
8. D. Johnson, B. O. Lovett, for plaintiff.
Alexander W. Stephens, for defendant.

Opinion:
Powell, J.
The first headnote is taken from the case of the Americus Grocery Co. v. Link, 116 Ga. 813.
The Supreme Court in Morrison v. Hilburn, 126 Ga. 114, held: "If the judgment against the defendant has been rendered in the court in which the garnishment is pending, the justice may look to such judgment to ascertain the amount of the judgment to be rendered against the garnishee, without such judgment being formally offered in evidence." From an inspection of the original record in that case it affirmatively appears that the plaintiff proposed to tender in evidence the judgment against the defendant, but the justice of the peace stated that, the judgment having been rendered in his own court and being before him, he would take cognizance of it, and a copy of the judgment was set out in full in the record as part of the answer of the justice. In the case at bar, it does not appear from the record that the judgment against the defendant was obtained in the same court in which the garnishment was pending, nor does a copy of such judgment or any other evidence of the existence of the same appear.
Judgment affirmed.