Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers, Inc.

198 S.E.2d 906, 129 Ga. App. 141, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 910

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 24, 1973

Docket47542

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 198 S.E.2d 906 (Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers, Inc., 198 S.E.2d 906, 129 Ga. App. 141, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 910 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff sued the defendants in the Superior Court of Fulton County for money damages and declaratory relief. On defendants’ motion, the proceedings were stayed pending the determination of a suit previously filed by defendants against plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants’ motion was supported by a copy of its complaint filed in the New York suit. Plaintiffs claim in this case does arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the defendants’ suit against the plaintiff in the Federal Court.

A stay in proceedings is merely a suspension of proceedings as distinguished from an abatement and the power to stay proceedings is an incident to the inherent power of any court to control the disposition of cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, counsel and for litigants and calls for the exercise of discretion. Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers, 230 Ga. 484. The trial judge here did not abuse his discretion in granting the stay for he merely was effectuating the desirable general policy of both State and Federal Courts to avoid multiplicity of suits. Judgment affirmed. Evans and Stolz, JJ, concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff sued the defendants in the Superior Court of Fulton County for money damages and declaratory relief. On defendants’ motion, the proceedings were stayed pending the determination of a suit previously filed by defendants against plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants’ motion was supported by a copy of its complaint filed in the New York suit. Plaintiffs claim in this case does arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the defendants’ suit against the plaintiff in the Federal Court.

A stay in proceedings is merely a suspension of proceedings as distinguished from an abatement and the power to stay proceedings is an incident to the inherent power of any court to control the disposition of cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, counsel and for litigants and calls for the exercise of discretion. Bloomfield v. Liggett & Myers, 230 Ga. 484. The trial judge here did not abuse his discretion in granting the stay for he merely was effectuating the desirable general policy of both State and Federal Courts to avoid multiplicity of suits. Judgment affirmed. Evans and Stolz, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.E.2d 906, 129 Ga. App. 141, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloomfield-v-liggett-myers-inc-gactapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack