History
  • No items yet
midpage
Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Barnett
76 Ga. 377
Ga.
1886
Check Treatment
Blandford, Justice.

The question here is, whether a constable can protect himself, under a rule, for not making the money due on a fi.fa. placed in his hands, on the ground that thefi.fa. did not follow the judgment upon which it was issued.

This court held in Gladden, sheriff, vs. J. L. & R. H. Cobb, decided at September term, 1884 (73 Ga., 235), that a sheriff would not be protected, upon a rule against him, on the ground that the execution issued on an irregular proceeding, for not collecting the amount due on the execution. The execution in the present case is not void, but only voidable, and could have been amended. The officer is not a judicial, but a ministerial officer ; ho must execute all process placed in his hands which is regular and proper on its face and which is issued by a person having authority to do so. 19 Ga., 139, 268.

Judgment reversed.

Case Details

Case Name: Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Barnett
Court Name: Supreme Court of Georgia
Date Published: Apr 20, 1886
Citation: 76 Ga. 377
Court Abbreviation: Ga.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.