Matthew Melton, Marion County GA

Marion County

Biographies

Marion County GAGenWeb

Trish Elliott-Kashima, County Coordinator

married #1 Nancy ------------, (not Hutchins - that was Henry Melton's wife) ca 1826 in Georgia, possibly the Twiggs or Houston Co area. (she was b 24 Oct 1800 SC or GA; d 10 Aug 1868 Marion Co GA, buried Union Baptist Church Cemetery).

Married #2 Caroline (She is called Acadia in the 1910 census - is this her "nickname?" - she was called Sally in her death certificate - middle name Sarah?) Weaver, 28 Mar 1869, Marion Co GA (she was b 27 Apr 1838 GA. She died April 12, 1927 Columbus, Muscogee Co GA, a widow, called "Sally" in her death certificate, Caroline was buried Union Baptist Church Cemetery - she married second to William R Worthen/Warthen, 19 Feb 1899, Marion County GA. William was about 34 years her junior according to the 1900, 1910 census. Her mother was Nellie Bentley Weaver 1815-1880, buried Union Baptist Church Cemetery. Her father was William Weaver according to her death certificate, but according to the 1850 census he was Bennett Weaver.)

1.) Louisa Jane, b 15 Dec 1828, Ga, probably Houston Co, GA. Married Solomon Thompson, 2 Nov 1845, Marion Co, GA.

2.) Martha Ann b 8 July 1830, GA, probably Houston Co GA, married James E. Short, 25 Nov1852, Marion Co GA 9She is my connection)

3.) Mary Ann, b ca 1832, GA, probably Houston Co GA (died young? or married by 1860)

4.) Richard Wiley, b 4 Sept 1833, probably Marion Co GA, married Jane B. Clements, 24 Aug 1856, Marion Co GA.

1828: 11 Sept: Houston Co GA: Matthew Melton to John Rushin both of Houston Co, for $287.50 for lot 193 in 15th Dist. Witnessed by David Jones and Edward Brooks, and Robert Peacock J.P., recorded 12 Oct 1830

Matthew Melton: 1 male 20-30, 2 females under 5 and 1 female 20-30 (Matthew, Nancy, Louisa and Martha)

1831, 15 Feb: Houston Co. page 128-132, Book "A" Sales and Appraisements of Estates: John Fletcher, Adm for James G. Parks "book accounts" were.........McKinne Milton, Elbert Milton, widow Melton, Matthew Milton (Melton), Catharine Melton among others.

1839/1840 (pre Sept 1840), Marion County GA, purchased pigs from estate of Clarkey Ethridge

Matthew Melton, 1 male 5-10, 1 male 30-40, 1 female 5-10, 2 females 10-15, 1 female 30-40.

1841: 27 Dec: Marion Co GA: This indenture made this 27 day of December 1841, between Matthew Melton of the one part and Reuben Reynolds of the other part both of the state and county above written witnesseth that the said Matthew Melton for in consideration of the sum of four hundred dollars to him in hand paid at and before the sealing and --- of these presents the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged hath granted bargained and sold and doth by those presents bargained and sell unto the said Reuben Reynolds his heirs and assigns all that tract or parcel of land situate lying in the fifth district of originally Muscogee now the county of Marion known and distinguished in plan of said district by being lot no 210 two hundred ten containing an undivided one third part of said lot be taken of the north side of said lot together with all and singular the rights members and appurtenances whatsoever unto the said Reuben Reynolds his heirs and assigns for ever in fee simple and I the said Mathew Melton for myself my heirs and assigns will warrant and forever defend the right and title of said land against my self my heirs and assigns and against all and every other person or persons what ever in witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year . Matthew (his mark) Melton.

Witness signed and sealed and delivered in the presence of us J. A. Clemons and William Hardage J.P. Recorded June 26th, 1841, Burton W. Dowd Clerk Superior Court

1843: Jan 10: Marion County GA Estray Records: Matthew Melton of the 710th Dist, G.M. took before me William Hollis, a justice of the for said County, eight head of sheepe to wit to withers mark crop hole eight year Lwalion fork left year 3 unmarked ones appraised by Benjamin Mory to one dollar a head. W. Hollis J.P.

1844: August 17th: Marion County, Book A, Inv and Appraisments: G. H. Sims, Elbert Melton and Matthew Melton were appraisers for goods and chattels of Flewellin P. Story.

1846: 23 Feb: Marion Co: Moses J. Hollis to Mathew Melton, both of Marion Co GA, for $112.50 west 50 acres of Lot 237, 5th Dist. Witnesses: Alfred L. Moore and Joseph Liles. This was not recorded until Sept 25, 1902.

1846: 27 Dec: Marion Co: Indenture between Matthew Melton of Marion County and Reuben Reynolds of Marion County for $500.00 for Lot 210, 5th Dist. Witnessed by J. A. Clemmons and William Hardage J.P., signed Matthew (his mark) Melton. Recorded Jan 28, 1847.

1847: 14 June: Marion Co, GA: Matthew Melton to Ruben Reynolds, $1,600.00 lot 211, 5th Dist. Witnesses John T. Hollis, Jacob A. Clemmons, recorded June 28, 1847. Signed with "X".

25 Sept 1852, Marion Co GA land records. S ½ of Lot 176 in 31^st Dist originally Lee Co now Marion Co, promissory note for $42 signed by Henry, value to be received by 25 Dec, promissory note

for $262 to be paid by 2 March by Matthew. Henry S. Melton sold to Matthew Melton.

29 Nov 1852 Marion Co GA land records: 4^th Dist, originally Muscogee Co now Marion Co, lot 144, except 50 acres. Isham Golden sold to Matthew Melton, $800.

1853: 9 July: Marion County, letters of dismission of guardianship by Matthew Melton, guardian for Elisebeth, Sarah C, Wiley B and Quiny Ann Melton, orphans and minors of McKiney Melton, deceased.

Page 3, Vol 1, Letters of dismission (page 3 comes at the end of the book instead of the beginning).

15 Oct 1853, Marion Co GA land records. 31^st Dist originally Lee now Marion Co, s ½ of Lot 112 containing 101-1/2 acres Littleton Olive sold to Matthew Melton $475.00.

29 April 1854, Marion Co GA land records: 31^st Dist originally Lee now Marion Co GA $550.00 Solomon Thompson sold to Matthew Melton N ½ of Lot 112, 101-1/4 acres.

1855: The undersigned will pay $100.00 reward for the apprehension and delivery to the sheriff of Marion County, of James Eidson, who stabbed Wiley Melton, in Buena Vista, on the 30^th ultimo. Said Eidson is about 20 years old, some 5 feet 8 inches high, stout built and remarkable broad across the shoulders for a person of his height, full round face, blue or gray eyes and dark hair. (signed) Matthew Melton, Buena Vista (Columbus GA newspaper, Vol 8, 1853-1855)

20 Oct 1855, Marion Co GA land records. 5^th Dist of what was Muscogee Co now Marion Co., Jasper Story sold to Matthew Melton for $2,125.00: 150 acres W side of lot 239, 75 acres east side of Lot 211, 25 acres east side of Lot 210. I have a copy of this. Recorded Feb 11, 1856

1858: 9 Nov Mary Short to Matthew Melton both of Marion Co: for $1040.00 lot 212 5th Dist was Muscogee now Marion Co. Witnesses: Jacob Clements, Solomon W. Thompson

1859: 1 Jan: Marion Co: Matthew Melton of Marion Co to David N. Burkhalter of Marion Co, southeast corner of lot 144, in Dist 4, for $1,000.00, witnessed by Wm. D. Elam and Wm. B. Butt.

1859: 12 Nov: Marion Co: Isaac Underwood of Marion Co to Matthew Melton of Marion Co for $1,200.00 for south half of lot 235 and east half of 236, 5th Dist. Witnessed by Samuel H. Crawford and Geo. W. McDuffie.

1859 Marion Co tax digest: 710th Dist, 1 poll, # of acres of pine land: 990, 202-1/2 (211 acres 5th Dist, 31st Dist Marion Co value of land $7,140, 16 slaves, valued at $8,000, aggregate etc, $1,286 agg. value of whole property $3,600. taxed 25 cents.

1863: 3 Nov: Marion Co: Morgan Kemp administrator of estate of James I. Kemp late of Marion Co and Mathew Melton of Marion Co, part (50 acres) of lot 213, 5th Dist for $1106.00. Witnessed by John A. Chapman and Geo W. McDuffie.

1863: 5 Nov: Marion Co: Matthew Melton of Marion Co to David Maddux of Marion Co., for $1,800.00, lot 112, originally Lee, now Marion Co. Witnessed by Geo. W. McDuffie and G. W. Facklen.

1867: 23 Jan: Marion Co: Mathew Melton of Marion Co to John R. Kemp of Marion Co for $600.00 50 acres of north west corner of lot 213, 5th Dist originally Muscogee Co now Marion Co. Witnessed by M. H. Blandford and Geo W. McDuffie.

1879: 22 Oct: Marion Co: Mary A. Hawke, William R. Kemp, Sarah A. Boynton, John R. Kemp, and Francis A. Harbuck and Lucy A. Thompson, all legal heirs of Elizabeth Robinson to Mathew Melton, west half of lot 213 for $320.00, witnessed L. A. Jester and Creciann (?) S. Kemp. Not recorded until Sept 28, 1902.

1882: 21 Aug: Marion Co: Adam O. Jones to Matthew Melton, both of Marion Co, for $900 (?), lot 215 except for 8 acres at the SE corner at the Columbus Rd. and 9-1/2 acres of lot 214 also 50 acres of lot 234 all in 5th Dist, witnessed by R. W. Revall and Hardy Royals.

1884: Sept 29: Marion Co, recording date - there is no date on the document - but it does include all of the land of 21 Aug 1882 from Matthew Melton to my wife Caroline Melton in consideration for natural love and affection. This land to revert to his estate, but she to be able to live there as long as she remains his widow and he reserves this land for himself during his life. Also personal property for her with the same restrictions and provisions: one bureau, 1 bedstead and six chairs the same being the set of furniture bought by her - also all beds and bed clothing she has made since of marriage and all that she owned when ever were married. Also the horse and buggy I now own also one feather bed weighing about 60 pounds. Also all interest I now own or may own in the stock company known as the Buena Vista Rail Road Company. Witness M. E. Short and Evan T. Mathis.

1885: Dec 5: Marion Co: C. D. Belk to Matthew Melton both of Marion Co: for $800.00 Half of Lot 235, on the south side of the Columbus Rd. , Dist 5, part of 213, part of 214, part of 234. Witnessed by G. W. Harvey and Evan Mathis.

1888: April 20: Marion Co Patriot, "Glenalta Scraps": Uncle Math Melton and lady are favorites with the young folks of this vicinity. A large number of the lads and lassies dined there last Sunday. Their hospitality cannot be excelled. Uncle Math is one of the largest land owners in our neighborhood. He owns between fourteen and fifteen hundred acres of Marion's fertile soil in one body.

1888: 6 Nov: Marion Co: G. Horace McCall executor of G. H. McCall deceased to Matthew Melton for $500.00 160 acres of lot 234 north of Columbus Road and east of the west prong of Kinchafoonee --- except a strip of 28 feet; also all of lot 235 lying north of Columbus Rd. and about 9-10 acres of lot 247.

An Octogenarian. Mr. Matthew Melton, a prominent farmer who lives about six miles northeast of Buena Vista, was in the city yesterday on a business trip. He is hale and hearty, though he has passes through the heats of eighty-one summers. He says that he has never rode a mile on a railroad in his life and he attributes longevity and good health to be in some measure to that fact. Columbus Enquirer.

1890: 9 Dec: Marion Co: J. J. Durham and Matthew Melton both of Marion Co: for $1,800.00: town lot 27 containing about 3 acres except for about 22-1/2 feet owned by Mrs. Elizabeth Butt, also the east half of town lot 28 and 29 except the part conveyed to the B.V. and Ellaville RR, containing two acres more or less. Bordered on the east by Church St and on the south by Mrs. Elizabeth Butt and Ella Crant and on the west by the lands of Nat Nickleson and said Prince Mathews.

1891: 25 May: Marion Co: W. T. Melton to Matthew Melton for $650.00. Town lot 109, containing about 1/2 acre. witness: H. L. Parker and W. D. Short.

1892: January: Marion Co: Matthew Melton, agent for Richard W. Melton and Jane B. Melton to W. A. Bartlett, unknown amount (shadowed copy); NE corner of lot 213. Witness Adam P. Jones and W. T. Bartlett.

1894: 14 April: Marion Co: Mathew Melton to Victor L. McMicheal: $1,300.00 one dwelling house and lot 109 in Buena Vista. Witness H. Stevens and E. B. Reese.

1895: 18 Nov: Marion Co: Mathew Melton to Caroline Melton for love and affection. All of lot 238, all of lot 237, 150 acres of lot 239, 100 acres of 211, all of 212, all of 213, 196 acres of 215, 27 acres of 234, 10 acres of 238, 33 acres of 214, 160 acres of 234 all in 5th Dist also my home and lot in the town of Buena Vista also 6 mules also my horse that I drive to my buggy and all harness and mules.

1897: May 14: Marion County Patriot: "Mr. Matthew Melton, whom we mentioned last week as having received a stroke of paralysis, died Friday night at about 10 o'clock. After the affliction came upon him he was unconscious until the end came. The funeral services were held at the residence immediately after the Columbus Train arrived, which were conducted by Rev. N. R. Sanborn, pastor of the Baptist Church. The remains were taken to Union Church Saturday afternoon for burial.

Uncle Matthew as he was familiarly known by his friends was one of the oldest men in the county, and would have been 90 years of age in September. He formerly lived on his plantation near Union Church, but about six years ago he bought a home in Buena Vista where he lived at the time of his death. Mr. Melton was a member of the Baptist Church and had many friends who will regret to hear of his death."

GA State Supreme Court Cases from "The American State Reports" by Abraham Clark Freeman: (page 184-188)
WARTHEN v. MELTON. [132 Qa. 113, 63 S. E. 832.] JUDGMENT IN GARNISHMENT, Attacking by Showing the Payment of the Original Judgment. — Where a transferee of an execution sues out a garnishment proceeding against one who has funds in his hands belonging to the principal debtor, one of the defendants in the execution, iaid garnishment proceeding being based on the judgment on which the execution was founded, a judgment rendered in favor of such transferee, while conclusive against the garnishee, may be attacked by the principal debtor, the defendant in fi. fa., on the ground that subsequently to its rendition the judgment, upon which the transferred execution was founded, had been paid off and discharged prior to the institution of the garnishment proceedings, (p. 186.) EXECUTION, Attacking by Showing that One of the Defendants was a Surety. — The parol evidence offered at the trial, to show that one of the defendants in the execution was merely a surety, was properly excluded, (p. 187.) JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION, Payment and Transfer of. — The court did not err in charging the jury as follows: "If you believe from the evidence hat Mathew Melton, one of the defendants, paid off this fi. fa., and had the same transferred to him, I charge you that that would be a settlement of the fi. fa., an-3 it would fee your duty to find the issue in favor of the plaintiff, Eli E. Melton," it not appearing from the recital in the transfer that the transferee had complied with the provision in section 5376 of the Civil Code, by having the amount of the payment made entered on the fi. fa. (p. 187.) JUDGMENT, Release of One of Several Judgment Debtors. —
Where a plaintiff in fi. fa., or a transferee of the execution accepts a sum of money from one of the joint defendants in such fi. fa., and "agrees to relieve him, and does release him," from further liability under said fi. fa., the other defendants are also released and the fi. fa. is discharged, (p. 188.)
JUDGMENT, Motion to Set Aside — Newly Discovered Evidence. — There was no abuse of discretion in overruling the ground of the motion based on the alleged newly discovered evidence, (p. 188.) (Syllabi by the court.) (184)beneficial interest in the estate of the bankrupt, and where there is no allegation that partition is necessary to fully protect the rights of those interested in the estate of the bankrupt. The decree is reversed and the cause remanded. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion. Every Cotenant is Entitled to a Partition as a matter of right: O'Brien v. Hahoney, 179 Mass. 200, 88 Am. St. Eep. 371. A trustee of an express trust holding the legal title to land may maintain a partition suit in his own name: Snell v. Harrison, 131 Mo. 495, 52 Am. St. Bep.DETAILS:

118 BECK, J. The Buena Vista Loan and Savings Bank obtained, in the county court of Marion county, a judgment against Eli E. Melton, Mathew Melton, and R. T. Melton, upon which judgment a fi. fa. issued on the twenty-sixth day of August, 1895. On December 19, 1895, said fi. fa. was transferred to Mrs. Mathew Melton (now Mrs. Caroline Warthen, the plaintiff in error). Eli E. Melton is a son and heir at law of Mitson Melton, deceased, and Troy Melton is the administrator on the estate of the deceased. On December 2, 1902, Mrs. Melton sued out a summons of garnishment against said administrator, and a verdict was rendered in her favor for the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars and twenty-nine cents. At the April term, 1903, of the superior court of said county, Eli II. Melton, one of the defendants, filed his motion to set aside the judgment against the garnishee, on various grounds; but at the hearing, all the grounds except the second and fifth, as amended, were abandoned ; and these are as follows: "Because since the rendition of the original judgment in said case, and before the suing out of said garnishment proceedings and the rendition of the judgment in said garnishment against said garnishee, to wit, on the nineteenth day of December, 1895, said execution and the judgment upon which the same was funded were paid off and discharged by Mathew Melton, one of the defendants in said original fi. fa. and judgment; said payment made to Joe J. Dunham, the attorney of record for said original plaintiff, Buena Vista Loan and Savings Bank, who was then the owner and holder of said fi. fa. and judgment." And further, "Because since the rendition of the original judgment in said case, and before the rendition of the judgment in said garnishment, or the suing out of said process, to wit, on the fourth day of April, 1896, Mrs. Math. (Caroline) Melton, the alleged transferee, received from R. T. Melton, one of the defendants in said original fi. fa. and judgment, the sum of twenty-five dollars, agreeing to release the said defendant upon the payment by him of fifty dollars, which sum of fifty dollars was paid by said R. T. Melton, one of the defendants, to Mrs. Math. (Caroline) Melton, to wit, twenty-five dollars on the said fourth day of April. 1896; sixteen and one-half dollars on April 17, 1896; and eight and one-half dollars on May 4, 1896; which interest may be had without partition, and this may be sufficient for debt paying purposes. Under the bankrupt law the trustee has "rights of action arising upon contracts or from the unlawful taking or detention of, or injury to, his [bankrupt's] property." The bankrupt's right to partition does not arise out of contract. Partition does not involve unlawful taking or detention of or injury to property. The bankruptcy law vests the title to the property of the bankrupt in the trustee in bankruptcy, and requires the trustee, under the supervision of the bankruptcy court. 800 to reduce the property to money for debt-paying purposes. The possession of one cotenant is the possession of all cotenants, when the rights of none are denied. If in this case Porter is in possession and denied the right of the trustee, the latter, having the legal title, could bring ejectment to establish his right to possession. But as the title of the trustee is not denied by Porter, the possession follows the title, and partition is not shown by any allegation in the bill to be necessary to a reduction of the property to money for purposes of paying debts, or that it will be advantageous to the interest of creditors to have partition thereof. There is no showing that partition is necessary or expedient to protect the rights of the trustee in bankruptcy or those whom he represents. The allegation is that the trustee in bankruptcy "is desirous of obtaining a partition and division of the said premises." The statutes of the state do not contemplate that partition may be enforced except when required by the demands or the interests of a beneficial owner, or when shown to be necessary to protect the rights of those beneficially interested. It is not shown that the interests of the beneficial owners here require partition. The defendants in the partition proceedings did not consent to the partition, but by demurrer questioned the trustee's right under the showing made by the bill to partition.
The bankruptcy law does not expressly authorize partition proceedings by the trustee of the bankrupt ; and as such a proceeding is not shown here to be essential to the statutory duties of such a trustee, and no such duty appears to have been imposed by the bankruptcy court, the statute of this state relating to partition should not be unreasonably extended to cover trustees in bankruptcy who have the bare legal title but only special statutory duties to perform in connection with such title, 8O1 who have no said payments and release were a full discharge and payment of said original fi. fa. and the judgment upon which the same was founded." Mrs. Melton filed an answer to the original motion to set aside the judgment, and also a plea of res judicata. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Eli E. Melton. Mrs. Melton filed a motion for a new trial, the grounds of which appear in the decision. The motion was overruled, and she excepted.

115 1. Where one who is a transferee of a judgment sues out a process of garnishment against another, and the latter, in answer to the summons of garnishment, admits that he is indebted to the defendant in execution, and thereupon the plaintiff enters a judgment against the garnishee for the sum admitted by him to be due the principal debtor. such a judgment, while conclusive against the garnishee, does not conclude the defendant in execution, upon proper pleadings, from attacking the judgment against the garnishee and showing that the judgment and execution, upon which the garnishment proceedings were based, had in fact been paid off and discharged prior to the institution of the garnishment proceedings. If the execution held by the transferee in this case had actually been paid off or discharged by the defendants in fi. fa., or the transferee had done any act which in law operated as a release of the defendants in fi. fa., and, notwithstanding, proceeded to enforce the same as a valid subsisting lien upon the property of the defendants therein, and obtained a judgment as stated above, such a judgment was obtained by fraud as against the principal debtor, and should be set aside upon proper pleadings instituted for that purpose. The question in this case as to whether the petition filed by the defendant in execution, which was termed "a motion," was sufficient in form or not has not been raised by demurrer or otherwise, although the defendant in the petition to have the judgment against the garnishee set aside, in addition to making denial of certain allegations in the petition and setting up certain other matters responsive to the charges, did plead: "That said judgment should not be opened and set aside for the reasons alleged in plaintiff's motion, for the reasons that the defenses therein set out were matters that by proper diligence the plaintiff in said motion could and should have ascertained and pleaded at the trial of said garnishment case, which was had in Marion superior court on the twenty-seventh day of October, 1903, said court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the defendant in said garnishment, and that the same is res adjudicata and should not be set aside." In regard to which plea, it is sufficient to observe that no issue between the principal debtor and the plaintiff in garnishment was determined by the judgment taken in that case, because the 116 principal debtor was not a party to the garnishment proceedings: Rood on Garnishment, sec. 375; Foster v. Haynes, 88 Ga. 240, 14 S. E. 570. 2. On the trial of the case the plaintiff in error offered parol evidence to show that Eli E. Melton "was principal in said judgment and fi. fa. [the basis of the garnishment proceedings], and that R. T. Melton and Mathew Melton were only securities." The court refused to admit this evidence, upon which ruling error is assigned. The judgment and execution on the face of each appears to be against all of the defendants as principals. The fact of suretyship does not appear on the face of the execution, nor, so far as we know, upon the face of the contract; and that being the case, the party seeking to enforce the execution was not entitled in this contest to show by parol evidence that certain parties defendant, who appear to have been joint principals, were in fact only sureties: Patterson v. Clark, 101 Ga. 214, 28 S. E. 623. 3. Error is assigned upon the following charge of the court: "If you believe from the evidence that Mathew Melton, one of the defendants, paid off this fi. fa. and had the same transferred to him, I charge you that that would be a settlement of the fi. fa., and it would be your duty to find the issue in favor of the plaintiff, Eli E. Melton." The exception to this part of the charge is not well taken. The execution in question in this case is against Mathew Melton and two other defendants. It would have been competent for either of the defendants to pay the execution against himself and the others, and take a written transfer from the plaintiff in fi. fa., and the fi. fa. would have been enforceable in favor of the transferee against the other joint defendants for their proportion of the amount so paid as the consideration of the transfer of the fi. fa., if the defendantmaking the payment had complied with the provisions of the Civil Code, section 5376, and had entered on the fi. fa. the payment made. That it was made for a "valuable consideration" does not authorize the inference that the plaintiff in fi. fa. had received from the transferees the full amount due thereon, and there was no entry appearing on the fi. fa. to show what amount was actually paid by the transferee. In the case of Miller v. Perkerson, 128 Ga. 465, 57 S. E. 787, it appears that several of the payments made by the defendants, to 'whom the fi. fa. was transferred, were credited 11T thereon as having been made, and in the transfer appears a recital to the effect that the transfer was made for "value received." It was held in that case that the expression "for value received" would authorize the inference, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that the plaintiff in fi. fa. had received from the transferee the full amount due thereon. Without questioning that ruling, we are unwilling to amplify it to the extent of holding that the recital which appears on the fi. fa. appearing in this record would authorize the same inference. And, without the support of such an inference, the contention of the plaintiff in error, in respect to the charge in question, must fail. 4. Under the evidence in this case the court did not err in instructing the jury that if they should find from the evidence that the transferee of the fi. fa. had "accepted a certain sum of money from R. T. Melton, one of the defendants to said fi. fa., and agreed to relieve him and did release him," the other defendants would also be released and the fi. fa. discharged : Powell v. Davis, 60 Ga. 70. 5. There was no abuse of discretion in overruling the ground of the motion based on the alleged newly discovered evidence. Judgment affirmed. All the justices concur. A Valid Judgment Against the Principal Defendant is essential to authorize a judgment against the garnishee: Frisk v. Reigelman, 57 Wis. 499, 17 Am. St. Rep. 198. That the latter may avail himself of the invalidity of the judgment against the principal, see the note to Hanna'u Syndics v. Lauring, 13 Am. Dec. 341. Compare, however,Schncitman v. Noble, 75 Iowa, 120, 9 Am. St. Rep. 467. Proceedings to Dissolve Attachments are discussed in the note to Collins v. Stanley, 123 Am. St. Eep. 1028.