Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureProcedural Due ProcessPrejudgment Garnishmentdue processFourteenth Amendmentgarnishmentprejudgment seizurebank account

Facts

Di-Chem filed suit against North Georgia Finishing for $51,279.17 allegedly due for goods sold and delivered. At the same time, before service of the complaint, Di-Chem filed an affidavit and bond for garnishment, and the clerk immediately issued a writ garnishing North Georgia Finishing's bank account at the First National Bank of Dalton. North Georgia Finishing then filed its own bond to dissolve the garnishment and moved to dismiss the writ, arguing that the Georgia statutory procedure violated due process. Under the Georgia statute, the writ could issue on the creditor's or attorney's affidavit containing only a statement of the amount due and a claimed apprehension of loss unless garnishment issued.

Issue

Whether Georgia's prejudgment garnishment procedure violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it allows a bank account to be frozen by a clerk-issued writ based on a conclusory affidavit, without notice, without opportunity for an early hearing, and without participation by a judicial officer.

Rule

A state may not significantly deprive a person of property through prejudgment garnishment procedures that permit issuance of a writ on conclusory allegations by a creditor or attorney, without notice or opportunity for an early hearing, and without judicial participation or other safeguards against mistaken seizure. A bank account is property, and even a temporary or partial deprivation of its use is subject to due process scrutiny.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Mesa Textile Supply, a small manufacturer in Phoenix, is sued in Arizona state court by Redwood Adhesives for an unpaid invoice. Under an Arizona statute, Redwood's lawyer files a short affidavit stating only the amount allegedly due and that Redwood fears nonpayment; the clerk immediately freezes Mesa's operating bank account without prior notice, and no prompt hearing is available unless Mesa posts its own bond.

Mesa argues the statute violates procedural due process. Which is the strongest argument?

Explanation. The majority treated a bank account as protected property and held that even a temporary impoundment is a significant deprivation subject to due process. The fatal features were issuance on conclusory allegations, by a clerk, without notice, and without an opportunity for an early hearing. The Court rejected any suggestion that only wages receive due process protection or that temporary deprivation falls outside the Fourteenth Amendment.