Williams v. Smith, (No. 6927.)*

• Decision Date: 25 September 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 6927.)*
• Citation: 169 Ga. 136,149 S.E. 908
• Parties: WILLIAMS. v. SMITH et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

169 Ga. 136

149 S.E. 908

WILLIAMS.

v.SMITH et al.

(No. 6927.)^*

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 25, 1929.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certified Questions from Court of Appeals.

Proceedings between M. L. Williams and C. O. Smith and others. Judgment for latter, and former brings error. On certified questions from Court of Appeals. Questions answered.

The Court of Appeals certified the following questions for decision:

"1. In section 5269 of the Civil Code of 1910 (relating to garnishment proceedings) is the following clause: 'And upon such affidavit, bond, and summons of garnishment being delivered to any officer authorized by law to levy an attachment, it shall be his duty to serve such summons of garnishment upon the person to whom it is directed, if to be found in his county [italics ours], and to make an entry of such service, and of his actings and doings in the premises, upon the affidavit and bond, and return the same to the court to which the person summoned as garnishee is required to appear.' Under the proper construction of the Code section and the clause thereof just quoted, do the words 'his county' refer to the county of the serving officer?

"2. If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, then an answer to the following question is requested: Where a suit was brought in the city court of Baxley, Georgia, on an open account, against a resident of Appling county, and at the same time a summons of garnishment (based upon proper affidavit and bond) was issued, and the person to whom it was directed, although a resident of a county other than Appling, was served personally in Appling county by the sheriff of the city court of Baxley, did the city court of Baxley have jurisdiction of the garnishment proceedings against the person so served with the summons of garnishment, and authority to require him to answer the summons of garnishment in that court?"

H. J. Lawrence, of Baxley, for plaintiff in error.

J. C. Bennett and John Rogers, both of Hazlehurst, and H. L. Williams, of Baxley, for defendant in error.

ATKINSON, J. [1] 1. Under a proper construction of Civil Code 1910, § 5269, the words "his county, " as employed therein and to which the question propounded relates, refer to the county of the serving officer. The provisions are, first, for delivery of the affidavit, bond, and summons of garnishment to "any officer authorized by law to levy an attachment"; and, second, for service by such officer of ''summons of garnishment upon the person to whom it is directed, if to be found in his county, and to make an entry of such service, " etc. It is the officer, and not the person to be served, on whom the prescribed official duties are imposed. The statute does not say expressly or by implication that the officer should make a state-wide search to find, the person desired to be served...