Smith v. Sweat

Decided January 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1878-01-15

<p>When the I?. fa. correctly describes the judgment as one recovered by B. T. Harrington & Go., there is no material variance from the judgment in a'subsequent clause which requires the money, when collected, to be paid to B. T Harrington, The omission of “ & Co.” is plainly a clerical error, and does not affect the sheriff’s authority to seize and sell the defendant’s property.</p>

Decided 1878-01-15

Bleckley, Judge.

¶1That part of the fi. fa. which conferred on the sheriff authority to seize and sell was perfect. The slight error in the subsequent direction in respect to disposing of the proceeds of sale was of no consequence. It was plainly a clerical omission, and whether supplied or not by -amendment, would make little or no difference. Certainly it did not affect the sheriff’s authority to seize and sell the defendant’s property; and that was the only material matter in passing upon the validity of a sale made under the fi. fa.

¶2Cited for plaintiff in error: Code, §§2628, 3496, 3507; 11 Ga., 294; 37 Ib., 251; 56 Ib., 543.

¶3Judgment reversed.