Willis v. Fincher
| Decision Date | 28 February 1882 |
| Citation | 68 Ga. 444 |
| Parties | Willis. vs. Fincher. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Garnishment. Practice. Justice Courts. Before Judge Stewart. Pike Superior Court. October Term, 1881.
Willis obtained judgment against Fincher in a justice's court at the December term of said court. On December 2d he garnished one Fincher, the process being returnable to the next (January) term of the court, which was held on the first Saturday in January, 1881. The garnishee answered on January 1st, that he was not indebted to the defendant. No traverse was filed. At the February term of the justice's court the docket was regularly called, when plaintiff moved the courts to strike the answer of Fincher upon two grounds.
(1.) Because it was insufficient in law and not responsive to the summons.
(2.) Because it was not filed in the time required by law, to-wit, ten days from the service of garnishment. The justice overruled the motion, and the case was carried to the superior court by certiorari, and there the judgment of the magistrate was affirmed, and plaintiff excepted.
Henry Walker, for plaintiff in error.
E. F. Dupree; J. F. Redding, for defendant.
1.One of the questions made by this record is whether a person summoned to answer a garnishment returnable to a regular term of a justice's court and service of which was made on him on the second day of December, 1880, was bound to answer within ten days from the service, as provided by section 4161 of the Code, or was the privilege extended to him of answering "at the term to which the garnishment is returnable, " as provided by the act approved 6th December, 1880, amending said section.
The procedures of courts are always subject to legislation. The amended act of 6th December, 1880, repealed the ten days' limitation of the 4161st section of the Code, and the duty and direction it imposed ceased to exist. The amended act was remedial, and should be liberally construed, and under it we hold the right and privilege were extended to the garnishee to answer at the term to which the garnishment was returnable; and especially is this so, when at the passage of the act the garnishee had not forfeited his right to answer under section 4161, as the ten days had not expired from the date of the service.
2. The second question made in the record, whether the court should have stricken the answer as made at the term to which the summons of garnishment was returnable as being insufficient in law, we do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...repealed the ten days' limitation of the 4161st section of the Code, and the duty and direction it imposed ceased to exist.' Willis v. Fincher, 68 Ga. 444. And so here, the Act of 1973, when it became effective on July 1 of that year simply caused the procedure of making an unsworn statemen......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.
...the procedure for obtaining same through the arbitration board which now no longer exists as to this particular law. See Willis v. Fincher, 68 Ga. 444; Baker v. Smith, 91 Ga. 142(1), 16 S.E. 967; Godwin v. Hudson, 94 Ga.App. 491(1), 95 S.E.2d 291; Pritchard v. Savannah Street &c. R. Co., 87......
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Postell
...495. this is as to laws affecting substantive or vested rights. The procedures of the courts are always subject to legislation. Willis v. Fincher, 68 Ga. 444, 445, and when the law is of a remedial or procedural nature it may be applied retroactively. Pritchard v. Savannah R. Co., 87 Ga. 29......
-
Scott v. Oxford
...statutes which merely effect changes in the procedure of the courts, apply to cases pending at the time of their passage. See Willis v. Fincher, 68 Ga. 444, where it was held that a garnishee summoned to answer a garnishment in a justice's court at a time when the answer must be filed withi......