Beck & Gregg Hardware Co. v. McKenzie

101 S.E. 806, 149 Ga. 699, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 375
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 15, 1920·No. No. 1495·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. “As a general .rule, a court of equity will not interfere with the regular administration of an estate by the representative; and to authorize such interference, the facts must clearly show there is a good reason for so doing.” Morrison v. McFarland, 147 Ga. 465 (4), 466 (94 S. E. 569).

2. Under the pleadings and the evidence in this ease, it falls within the general rule stated in headnote 1; and consequently the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to appoint a receiver, and in refusing a temporary injunction. »

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck & Gregg Hardware Co. v. McKenzie, 101 S.E. 806, 149 Ga. 699, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 375 (Ga. 1920).

101 S.E. 806 (Beck & Gregg Hardware Co. v. McKenzie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hamrick v. Hamrick
58 S.E.2d 145 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Wilcox v. Thomas
12 S.E.2d 343 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Kemp v. Trust Co.
187 S.E. 75 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Darby v. Green
162 S.E. 493 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Gaines v. Gaines
154 S.E. 883 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)