Murphy v. Crew

Decided December 15, 1868

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1868-12-15

<p>Both plaintiff and defendants in error had issued attachments against Joseph A. Crew, and each had served J. Sibly. & Sons with summons of garnishment. The garnishment in favor of Bruce & Co. was first served. Bruce &«Co., after Murphy had obtained judgment on his attachment, dismissed their attachment in vacation. At the next term of the Court, they were permitted, with the consent of the defendant in attachment, to reinstate their case :</p> <p>Held, that they 'lost their priority over Murphy by dismissing the attachment, and that they could not regain it by reinstating their case.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1893

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Brown, C. J.

¶1The single question presented by this record is, whether E. M. Bruce & Co., who lost the priority which they had obtained over Murphy by the first service, of their attachment, by serving Josiah Sibly & Sons with summons of garnishment, regained that priority, by obtaining the consent of the defendant in attachment, and the leave of the Court, to reinstate their case on the docket? We think not.

¶2While we do not question the right of the Court to grant the order to reinstate the case, both plaintiffs and defendants consenting, we hold that this could only be done subject to the rights which third persons had acquired in the meantime. When E. M. Bruce & Co. dismissed their attachment, Murphy’s right to priority attached immediately, and that right could not be divested by reinstating their case at the next term of the Court. As to the general doctrine on this subject, see Revised Code, 34-45; 5 Ga., 527; 18 Ga., 287.

¶3Judgment reversed.