Biggers v. Hope

Supreme Court of Georgia

Biggers v. Hope

167 S.E. 176, 176 Ga. 141, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 408

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 15, 1932

DocketNo. 9173

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 S.E. 176 (Biggers v. Hope) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Biggers v. Hope, 167 S.E. 176, 176 Ga. 141, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 408 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. Under the power conferred upon judges of the superior courts by the Civil Code of 1910, § 4850, to grant supersedeas, the judge may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, grant a supersedeas where the prevailing party is insolvent and irreparable injury is about to flow from enforcement of the judgment, although the losing party has made no attempt to obtain a supersedeas under § 6165 at or before the filing of a bill of exceptions assigning error upon the judgment overruling a motion for a new trial. Montgomery v. King, 125 Ga. 388, 391 (54 S. E. 135). In the case of Parker-Hensel Engineering Co. v. Schuler, 133 Ga. 696 (66 S. E. 800), there was no application to the judge for the grant of supersedeas under § 4850.

2. The judge did not abuse his discretion in this ease in granting a supersedeas and in temporarily enjoining enforcement of the judgment upon which error was assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices eoneur. Clarice & Clcvrlce, for plaintiff. Paul S. Etheridge & Sons and Morgan S. Belser, for defendant.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. Under the power conferred upon judges of the superior courts by the Civil Code of 1910, § 4850, to grant supersedeas, the judge may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, grant a supersedeas where the prevailing party is insolvent and irreparable injury is about to flow from enforcement of the judgment, although the losing party has made no attempt to obtain a supersedeas under § 6165 at or before the filing of a bill of exceptions assigning error upon the judgment overruling a motion for a new trial. Montgomery v. King, 125 Ga. 388, 391 (54 S. E. 135). In the case of Parker-Hensel Engineering Co. v. Schuler, 133 Ga. 696 (66 S. E. 800), there was no application to the judge for the grant of supersedeas under § 4850.

2. The judge did not abuse his discretion in this ease in granting a supersedeas and in temporarily enjoining enforcement of the judgment upon which error was assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices eoneur. Clarice & Clcvrlce, for plaintiff. Paul S. Etheridge & Sons and Morgan S. Belser, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 176, 176 Ga. 141, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biggers-v-hope-ga-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack