TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Finney v. Mayer & Co.

Finney v. Mayer & Company

Finney v. Mayer & Co., 61 Ga. 500 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 15, 1878
Judges
Bleckley
Citations
61 Ga. 500
Headnotes
Discharge granted in bankruptcy, pending a suit in the state court, commenced before the proceedings in bankruptcy and duly served, is matter for plea in such suit. It cannot, after judgment in that suit, be set up by affidavit of illegality attacking the judgment.
Summary
Bankruptcy. Judgments. Illegality. Before Judge Hillyer. Fulton Superior Court. October Term, 1877. On August 6th, 1874, Mayer & Go. commenced suit against Finney. On the 14th of the same month the latter filed his petition in bankruptcy. The process attached to the declaration was dated August 18th, and-defendant was served on the 26th. On the preceding day he was adjudged a bankrupt. At the spring term, 1875, of the superior court, the case was continued without an entry. The succeeding fall term convened on October 3d, and on the next day defendant was discharged in bankruptcy by the district court of the United States. On October 7th the superior court adjourned until the 10th, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs against defendant on the 13th. No pleas were filed. On the 20th execution issued, and on the 6th of the following November a levy was made, in response to which defendant set up his discharge in bankruptcy by affidavit of illegality. The court overruled the ground of illegality taken, and ordered the execution to proceed. To this defendant excepted.

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

Opinion of the Court — Bleckley

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

Bleckley, Justice.

By statute, the commencement of suit is the filing of the declaration. There was due service, and’ no further proceedings .took place until after the discharge in bankruptcy was granted. There was full opportunity to plead the discharge before judgment was rendered. There is no legal basis for the affidavit of illegality. It cannot vacate the judgment; most certainly, the judgment is not void, but valid and conclusive.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1882–1883: 11910–1911: 11912–1913: 11914–1915: 11926–1927: 11934–1935: 21936–1937: 118822026peak 1934 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Riggs v. Kinney140 S.E. 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)
  2. Farmers & Traders' Bank v. University Publishing Co.70 S.E. 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911)
  3. McDougald v. Chattanooga Medicine Co.73 S.E. 1089 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912)
  4. Crawford v. Bostwick-Goodell Co.80 S.E. 1005 (Ga. 1914)
  5. Garner v. Hartsfield Loan & Savings Co.174 S.E. 647 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
  6. Edison Provision Co. v. Armour & Co.179 S.E. 829 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)

Most recent

  1. Nash Loan Co. v. Yonge186 S.E. 811 (Ga. 1936)
  2. Edison Provision Co. v. Armour & Co.179 S.E. 829 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
  3. Garner v. Hartsfield Loan & Savings Co.174 S.E. 647 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
  4. Riggs v. Kinney140 S.E. 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)
  5. Crawford v. Bostwick-Goodell Co.80 S.E. 1005 (Ga. 1914)
  6. McDougald v. Chattanooga Medicine Co.73 S.E. 1089 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912)

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