Seabd. Air Line Ry v. Burns

• Decision Date: 09 September 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 5899.)
• Citation: 86 S.E. 270,17 Ga.App. 1
• Parties: SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. v. BURNS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

86 S.E. 270

17 Ga.App. 1

SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.

v.BURNS.

(No. 5899.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Sept. 9, 1915.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by Eufaula Burns, administratrix, against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, in which the Seaboard Air Line Railway was named as garnishee. Judgment for plaintiff, and the garnishee brings error. Affirmed.

W. G. Loving and Tye, Peeples & Jordan, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Marion Smith, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL, C. J. Eufaula Bums, an Alabama administratrix, sued out an attachment, returnable to the city court of Atlanta, against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, for the recovery of damages for the alleged negligent killing, in the state of Alabama, of her intestate, Nesbit Burns. Upon this attachment, on May 29, 1913, a garnishment was issued and served upon the Seaboard Air Line Railway. The garnishee answered that it was indebted to the defendant in certain sums and had in its possession certain cars belonging to the defendant. Later, however, the garnishee, with permission of the court, filed an amendment to its answer, which was, in substance, as follows: It is a nonresident of Georgia, and is a citizen and resident of Virginia. Before it was served with the summons of garnishment on May 29, 1913, to wit, on May 27, 1913, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, in a certain equity cause pending therein, had appointed certain receivers for the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. The defendant was a resident of the Eastern district of Missouri, and the court appointing the receiver had jurisdiction of it. The bill under which the receivers were appointed was a general creditors' bill, and it was prayed therein that the rights of the complainant in the bill "and of other creditors of the defendant" might be ascertained and decreed, and that the court might fully administer the entire property and assets of the defendant and enforce the rights, etc., of its creditors. The appointees were made receivers of all the franchises, claims, rights, interests, and property of the defendant, and, among other powers conferred upon them, they were authorized and directed to forthwith take possession of, and preserve, manage, operate, and use, its property, and conduct the business of the defendant, and collect all moneys due or to become due it. It is further alleged by the...