Bridges v. Nicholson

20 Ga. 90
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 15, 1856
DocketNo. 18
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 Ga. 90 (Bridges v. Nicholson) 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
Bridges v. Nicholson, 20 Ga. 90 (Ga. 1856).

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

£1.] Our judgment is, that the injunction in this case ;should be continued.

If the Harrells paid a part of the debt only, they could mot, at Law, get the control even for that.

£2.] We are clear that the levy should not be dismissed, [94]*94because the executors of Lamar have neglected or refused to answer the hill: for if the whole debt due their testator has been discharged by the Harrells, (and such is the allegation dn the bill,) the executors are but nominal parties.

£3.] And however irregular or erroneous the judgment •against Troutman or his representative may be, it cannot be attacked, collaterally, by the claimant, Bridges.

It is a valid judgment until vacated or set aside, in a direct -proceeding instituted for that purpose; and perhaps not then, at the instance of the administrator of Troutman, under the circumstances of this case. He had his day in Court. The scire facias was regularly sued out and served upon him; and then was the time to have made his defence, if he had -any.

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

Related

Duer v. Thweatt
39 Ga. 578 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1869)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Ga. 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridges-v-nicholson-ga-1856.