Allison v. Cassels

Supreme Court of Georgia

Allison v. Cassels

149 S.E. 557, 169 Ga. 6, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 267

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided September 10, 1929·No. No. 6785·Published

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

Under the pleadings and the evidence the court was authorized to find that the plaintiff had an interest in the fees or commissions earned in the transactions through the joint efforts of himself and F. L. Allison; and that the relation between such parties was not simply that of debtor and creditor; and that defendants are insolvent.

2. It follows from the above ruling that the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and that equity has jurisdiction to enjoin the transfer of the funds pending the final hearing. The court did not err in granting an interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. R. L. Maynard, for plaintiffs in error. Hollis Fort and W. W. Dykes, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Atkinson, J.

Under the pleadings and the evidence the court was authorized to find that the plaintiff had an interest in the fees or commissions earned in the transactions through the joint efforts of himself and F. L. Allison; and that the relation between such parties was not simply that of debtor and creditor; and that defendants are insolvent.

2. It follows from the above ruling that the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and that equity has jurisdiction to enjoin the transfer of the funds pending the final hearing. The court did not err in granting an interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. R. L. Maynard, for plaintiffs in error. Hollis Fort and W. W. Dykes, contra.

Allison v. Cassels, 149 S.E. 557, 169 Ga. 6, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 267 (Ga. 1929).

Pincite

149 S.E. 557 (Allison v. Cassels) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.