Crawford v. Bostwick-Goodell Co.

• Decision Date: 19 February 1914
• Citation: 80 S.E. 1005,141 Ga. 356
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. BOSTWICK-GOODELL CO. ET AL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

80 S.E. 1005

141 Ga. 356

CRAWFORD v. BOSTWICK-GOODELL CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 19, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

Discharge granted in bankruptcy, pending a suit commenced in a state court before the proceedings in bankruptcy, and duly served, is matter for plea in such suit. The enforcement of a judgment, which was rendered in such suit after the discharge, will not be enjoined because of it.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; J. T. Pendleton, Judge.

Suit by J. J. Crawford against the Bostwick-Goodell Company and others, to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment by garnishment proceedings. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Poole & Lewis, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Daley & Chambers and Horton Bros. & Burress, all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

EVANS, P.J.

A judgment creditor was seeking to enforce his judgment by process of garnishment, when the defendant filed a petition to enjoin the garnishment proceedings, on the ground that the judgment debt had been discharged in bankruptcy. It appears that pending the suit which eventuated in the judgment the defendant was adjudged a bankrupt, but no plea setting up his discharge was filed in bar of the judgment which was subsequently rendered. An attack was made in the pleadings on the judgment as having been rendered without notice according to the rules of court; but it is not necessary to notice this point, for the reason that it is certified in the bill of exceptions that "the only point insisted on by plaintiff was that the judgment was proceeding illegally, for the reason that the same was proceeding against property acquired by plaintiff after his discharge in bankruptcy; and the court ruled that a judgment obtained against a bankrupt after his discharge could be enforced against any property belonging to plaintiff, whether acquired before or after his discharge." The ruling of the court was manifestly right. In order for the plaintiff to avail himself of his discharge he should have pleaded it in the pending suit. Failing to plead it, the subsequent judgment is not affected by such discharge, and is an enforceable lien against any property of the defendant. Finney v. Mayer, 61 Ga. 500.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.