1. Where many of the questions contained in the interrogatories were not subject to the general objections urged against them, the trial judge erred in sustaining such objections.

2, 4, 5. Objections that certain interrogatories were irrelevant, immaterial and without the contemplation of the statute authorizing discovery were too general and thus insufficient.

3. Code Ann. 38-1201 does not authorize inquiry as to the property of persons other than the judgment debtor.

This case arose after the appellant obtained a judgment against the appellee. The appellant, as plaintiff in fi. fa., seeking information relating to property from which the execution might be satisfied. The questions generally propounded in the interrogatories were as to the defendant in fi. fa.'s ownership of property, business participation, transfer of property, bank accounts, debtors, gifts and similar information. The defendant in fi. fa. answered that he had a gross income in excess of $7,000 per year and that he owned no property or bank accounts, that he had not given any gifts and that no one owed him any money. The appellant them sought more detailed information in this regard by means of second interrogatories. To these second interrogatories the appellee filed a motion to quash based on various grounds. After a hearing the trial judge entered an order sustaining the appellee's motion to quash on each and every ground. From this judgment an appeal was taken.

1. The first objection was to the interrogatories as a whole on the ground that the continued propounding of interrogatories was harassing, burdensome, and called upon the defendant to answer inquiries that were altogether irrelevant, in that the questions did not specify assets available to satisfy the judgment obtained against him, nor were they reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of assets.

While many of the questions contained in the second interrogatories cover ground similar to that of the first, they seek more particularity or expansion of the areas delved into by the first interrogatories. The inquiries seek greater detail and to encompass areas not probed in the former interrogatories. For example, the first interrogatories contained a question concerning what present litigation the defendant in fi. fa. was involved in, while the second interrogatories quizzed him as to whether the defendant in fi. fa. transferred title after January 5, 1965, while the second sought information as to transfer of title prior to that date. In short, the second interrogatories sought to plug "loopholes" in the first. Since many questions incorporated in the second interrogatories were not subject to the general objections made in the first ground, the trial judge erred in sustaining that ground.

2. The second objection was addressed to questions denominated 1, 2 and 3, which inquired as to the appellee's date of birth, parents, and information relative thereto, the addresses of every place he lived and previous litigation in which he was involved, on the grounds that: the questions were irrelevant, immaterial, and without the contemplation of the statute authorizing discovery (Code Ann. 38-1201).

While they might be subject to a proper objection pointing out wherein the questions were irrelevant, immaterial, and without the contemplation of the statute, the objections urged herein were insufficient. As pointed out in the commentaries on the Federal Rules a general objection such as a mere statement that interrogatories are irrelevant and immaterial is not sufficient. 4 Moore, Federal Practice, 2d Ed. 33.27, pp. 2414, 2415; 7 Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, 3rd Ed., 25.505, pp. 494, 495, and cases cited. The trial judge erred in sustaining the second ground of the motion to quash.

3. Grounds 3 and 5 may be combined for disposition. They attack interrogatories 4, 5, 8 and 18, which relate to whether the appellee's wife owned business interests or property, on the grounds that: the law does not afford the plaintiff the right to inquire respecting the assets of any third party; such inquiry is not authorized by law; the answers sought had been previously inquired into by the first interrogatories.

The Georgia statute specifically provides: "Discovery may . . . be had from defendants in fi. fa. as to the property from which executions may be satisfied." (Emphasis supplied.) Code Ann. 38-1201. In passing upon the provisions of a similar Federal statute, it has been pointed out since there is not right to subject to a judgment property of persons other than the judgment debtor, there is no commensurate right to require disclosure of others' assets. Burak v. Scott, 29 FSupp. 775. This court has held: "Clearly under the language of this Code section, discovery can only by had under its provisions from defendants in fi. fa. after conclusion of the action, and this relating only to property from which an execution might by satisfied." Wilkinson v. Clark, 103 Ga. App. 741, 742 (120 SE2d 357). Thus, construing the Georgia statute we hold, in this case, the property of a third party is not a proper subject of inquiry. The trial judge did not err in sustaining Grounds 3 and 5, insofar as the questions complained of related to the wife's property.

4. The fourth ground complains that inquiries into gifts made to concerns since January 5, 1965, are irrelevant and outside the contemplation of the statute. Beside noting this objection is subject to the same infirmity as the second ground, to wit: too general to be sufficient, we point out that gifts (transfers of property) made since the judgment, or in contemplation thereof, would be subject to inquiry for possible further scrutiny. Bradley v. Coach & Six Restaurants, 112 Ga. App. 278, 280, supra.

5. The sixth ground moves to suppress the remaining interrogatories on the grounds that they were either irrelevant, immaterial and unauthorized by law or had been fully answered previously. As explained in the first division of this opinion, many of the second interrogatories made inquiry in greater depth than previously. Furthermore, though repetitiousness and redundancy in interrogatories has been decided objectionable (Payer, Hewitt & Co. v. Bellanca Corp., 26 F.R.D. 219), the fact that some questions are somewhat duplicative, without more, does not subject them to objection. Schotthofer v. Hagstrom Constr. Co., 23 F.R.D. 666; Khedouri v. S. S. Aram J. Pothier, 15 Federal Rules Service 33.312, case 1. Moreover, as held in the second division of this opinion, objections predicated on the basis that certain questions are irrelevant and immaterial are insufficient.

The trial judge properly sustained Grounds 3 and 5 of the motions to quash, but erred in not overruling Grounds 1, 2, 4 and 6.

Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part. Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.