Smith v

Tronitec, Inc., 277 Ga. 210, 586 S.E.2d 661, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 790 (2003). Bank sued the bank’s customer to recover for an overdraft; before filing the customer’s counterclaim, the customer sued the bank in another county. As the customer raised the same claims in the customer’s complaint and counterclaim, and as there was a logical relationship between the parties’ claims, the customer’s counterclaim was compulsory; therefore, the customer’s suit against the bank was barred by O.C.G.A. § 9-2-5(a). Steve A. Martin Agency, Inc. v. PlantersFIRST Corp., 297 Ga. App. 780, 678 S.E.2d 186, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 540 (2009). As a bank filed suit against the bank’s customer before the latter filed suit against the former, and both suits involved the same cause of action, the customer’s suit was properly dismissed under O.C.G.A. § 9-2-5(a). Though the bank did not serve the customer until the customer’s suit was filed, the service on the customer related back to the date of filing, which established the date the bank’s suit was commenced. Steve A. Martin Agency, Inc. v. PlantersFIRST Corp., 297 Ga. App. 780, 678 S.E.2d 186, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 540 (2009). Attachments Separate remedies. — Common-law action and attachment proceedings are considered by the law as separate and distinct remedies which a party may pursue concurrently and the satisfaction of one satisfies the other. Sheehan v. Ruben, 83 Ga. App. 336, 63 S.E.2d 605, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 864 (1951). One may pursue a common-law action and a proceeding in attachment for the same debt, at the same time, against the same party. Sheehan v. Ruben, 83 Ga. App. 336, 63 S.E.2d 605, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 864 (1951). Action in this state and attachment in another. — Under this section, an action in this state against the debtor and attachment in another state against the debtor’s property may proceed at the same time for the same debt. Lightfoot v. Plant- 21 Attachments (Cont’d) ers’ Banking Co., 58 Ga. 136, 1877 Ga. LEXIS 29 (1877). Judgment to credit defendant with attachment sale proceeds. — When holder of title-retention note given for purchase money of machinery files suit on note, defendant purchaser cannot set up in bar or in abatement that plaintiff had previously in same court instituted a purchase-money attachment; if judgment is rendered for plaintiff, court should mold the court’s judgment to credit defendant 9-2-5 with any sums realized from the sale of the property under attachment proceedings. Hayes v. International Harvester Co. of Am., 52 Ga. App. 328, 183 S.E. 197, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 160 (1935). Attachments under former Civil Code 1910, § 5071 (see now O.C.G.A. § 18-3-4) were expressly excepted from the provisions of subsection (a) of former Code 1933, §§ 3-601 and 3-605 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-2-5) by subsection (b). Johnson & Son v. Friedman-Shelby Shoe Co., 15 Ga. App. 561, 83 S.E. 969, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 329 (1914).