Bond v. Curd

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bond v. Curd

144 S.E. 210, 166 Ga. 717, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 388

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 16, 1928·No. No. 6353·Published

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

On the issue of the plaintiffs’ right to injunction the controlling question depends upon the authority of the executors, under a proper construction of the will, to manage and control the property during the life of Clarence H. Douglas. So much of the will as is material to this question is to be found in items three, five, six, seven, and nine of the will, which are set out in the statement of facts. Under a proper construction the executors were authorized to manage and control the realty at least during the incapacity of Clarence H. Douglas; and the order of the court was not erroneous in so far as it refused 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

Atkinson, J.

On the issue of the plaintiffs’ right to injunction the controlling question depends upon the authority of the executors, under a proper construction of the will, to manage and control the property during the life of Clarence H. Douglas. So much of the will as is material to this question is to be found in items three, five, six, seven, and nine of the will, which are set out in the statement of facts. Under a proper construction the executors were authorized to manage and control the realty at least during the incapacity of Clarence H. Douglas; and the order of the court was not erroneous in so far as it refused a temporary injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Bond v. Curd, 144 S.E. 210, 166 Ga. 717, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 388 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

144 S.E. 210 (Bond v. Curd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.