W. T. Harvey Lumber Co. v. J. M. Wells Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 28 September 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 39086,39086,2 |
Citation | 104 Ga.App. 498,122 S.E.2d 143 |
Parties | W. T. HARVEY LUMBER COMPANY v. J. M. WELLS LUMBER COMPANY, Inc |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John G. Cozart, Columbus, for plaintiff in error.
Copland & Copland, Arthur F. Copland, Thomas E. Sikes, Columbus, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. On the trial of a traverse to the answer of not indebted in a garnishment, the general rule is that if the garnishee is not indebted to the defendant in fi. fa. in such manner that the latter could sue and obtain a judgment against it, then the garnishing plaintiff, who is in no better position than the defendant as to the garnishee, is not entitled to recover. Adair-Levert, Inc. v. Atlanta Envelope Co., 70 Ga.App. 685, 29 S.E.2d 323. An exception may exist where for some reason personal to himself the debtor is estopped from recovering what would otherwise be a valid obligation of the garnishee. Thus, where the debtor has placed his property in the hands of another for the purpose of defrauding creditors, although he might not himself be entitled to sue and recover it back, the judgment creditor may pursue the asset by garnishment, and has every right to recover it which the debtor himself has plus the additional advantage that he may set up the fraud of the debtor although the debtor himself might not do so. Watkins v. Pope, 38 Ga. 514, 515(2).
2. The prior admissions of a party to an action may be offered in evidence although not against interest when made, and, if believed by the jury, may be considered as substantive evidence of the fact sought to be proved. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Kendall, Ga.App., 122 S.E.2d 139. An attorney is such an agent of his client that his declarations made during the course of his employment may be offered against his principal. Glover v. Summerour, 165 Ga. 513(5), 141 S.E. 211.
3. Farrow v. Whitaker, 58 Ga.App. 454(3), 198 S.E. 821.
4. The evidence in this case was that the plaintiff W. T. Harvey Lumber...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re EI du Pont de Nemours and Co.
...and, unless withdrawn or stricken, may work an estoppel to deny them on the party making them); W.T. Harvey Lumber Co. v. J.M. Wells Lumber Co., Inc., 104 Ga.App. 498, 122 S.E.2d 143 (1961) (attorney is such an agent of client that his declarations made during the course of his employment m......
-
Thompson v. State, No. S03G0176.
...made during the course of his employment may be offered against his principal. [Cit.]" W.T. Harvey Lumber Co. v. J.M. Wells Lumber Co., 104 Ga.App. 498-499(2), 122 S.E.2d 143 (1961). Compare Farmer v. State, 100 Ga. 41, 45(3), 28 S.E. 26 (1896) (where accused was party to a prior civil acti......
-
Lane v. Tift County Hosp. Authority
...the probativeness, accuracy, and authenticity of such discharge summary as evidence. See generally W. T. Harvey Lumber Co. v. J.M. Wells Lumber Co., 104 Ga.App. 498, 122 S.E.2d 143 (1961); NAACP v. Pye, 96 Ga.App. 685, 101 S.E.2d 609 (1957); Everitt v. Harris, 67 Ga.App. 64, 19 S.E.2d 545 (......
-
Early v. Ramey
...is not a party opponent; the admission against interest of a party does have probative value. W. T. Harvey Lumber Co. v. J. M. Wells Lumber Co., Inc., 104 Ga.App. 468(2), 122 S.E.2d 143. But here the motion for summary judgment concerns only Early, the employer, and 'the declarations of the......