TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williams v. Atwood

Andrew J. Williams, and Frances E. Albritton, in error v. James A. Atwood, in error

Williams v. Atwood, 52 Ga. 585 (1874)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1874
Judges
Warner
Citations
52 Ga. 585
Headnotes
(Trippe, J udge, was providentially prevented from presiding in this case.) 1. Where an execution failed to follow the judgment upon which it was based, either in amount or as to the parties, it was properly excluded upon the trial of a claim. 2. A judgment must be regularly entered upon a confession of judgment. The confession itself is not the judgment of the court.
Summary
Executions. Evidence. Judgments. Practice in the Superior Court. Before J udge Clark. Sumter Superior Court. April Term, 1874. For the facts of this case, see the decision.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Warner

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a claim case, and on the trial thereof the court, on motion of claimants’ counsel, ruled out the plaintiffs’ fi. fa. as evidence before the jury, and dismissed the levy; whereupon, the plaintiffs excepted. It appears from the evidence in the record that Black and Samuel R. Walker confessed judgment to Albritton at the April term, 1861, of Sumter superior court, for the sum of $15,000 00, reserving the right of appeal. An ajzpeal’was entered, and pending the appeal, Walker died, and Izis administrators were made parties in his stead. At the April term of the court, 1871, the appeal was dismissed. There does not appear to have been any judgment entered up on the confession of judgment made at the April term, 1861, either before the appeal was entered, or after the dismissal thereof. On the 12th of August, 1871, an execution was issued on the confession, we suppose, as there is no other judgment to be found in the l’ecord, commanding the sheriff to make the suzn of $9,380 50 by levy and sale of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of Robert C. Black, and Burmah Walker and James M. Walker, administz’ator and administz’atrix of Samuel R. Walker1, deceased, to satisfy a judgment which Arzdrew J. Williams and Frances E. Albritton, executor and executrix of the estate of M. G. F. Albritton, deceased, recovered against Robert C. Black and Burznah Walker and James M. Walker, administz-ator aud administratrix of the estate of Samuel R. Walker, deceased. The court ruled out the fi. fa. because it did not follow the judgment, and did not authorize a levy on Samuel Walker’s property.

1. Assuming that the confession would opez’ate as a judgment, without a judgment having been entered up thereon, *587 still thejd fa. does not follow the assumed judgment, either in amount or as to the parties, and was properly ruled out by the court on that ground. Code, section 3636.

2. The Code does not in express terms declare that a judgment shall be entered up and signed on a confession, as in cases in which verdicts are rendered, within four days after the adjournment of the court, but such has always been the practice in our courts, so far as we are advised. The 3570th section of the Code declares that in all cases where judgment may be obtained, such judgment shall be entered up for the principal sum due with interest, etc. This would include judgments obtained by confession. The 3600th section declares that no confession of judgment shall be entered up, but in the county where the defendant resided at the time of the commencement of the action, etc., thus clearly recognizing that a judgment obtained by confession is to be entered up as in cases of judgments rendered on verdicts. Until the judgment is entered up, and signed, it is not the judgment of the court.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1899: 11931: 21932: 11941: 11942: 11992: 118992026peak 1931 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Osborne v. Rice33 S.E. 54 (Ga. 1899)
  2. Information Buying Co. v. Miller161 S.E. 617 (Ga. 1931)
  3. Bank of Tupelo v. Collier14 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. 1941)
  4. Thomas v. Bloodworth160 S.E. 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931)
  5. Collier v. Evans423 S.E.2d 704 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)
  6. Gibbs v. G. H. Weston & Co.18 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. 1942)

Most recent

  1. Collier v. Evans423 S.E.2d 704 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)
  2. Gibbs v. G. H. Weston & Co.18 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. 1942)
  3. Bank of Tupelo v. Collier14 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. 1941)
  4. Whitley v. Southern Wholesale Corp.164 S.E. 903 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932)
  5. Information Buying Co. v. Miller161 S.E. 617 (Ga. 1931)
  6. Thomas v. Bloodworth160 S.E. 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list