Carter v. Bassett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carter v. Bassett

119 S.E. 456, 31 Ga. App. 58, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 723

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 11, 1923

Docket14245

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 S.E. 456 (Carter v. Bassett) 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

Carter v. Bassett, 119 S.E. 456, 31 Ga. App. 58, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 723 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The facts in this case being substantially the same as those reported in the ease of Adams v. McClendon, 30 Ga. App. 559 (118 S. E. 497), the trial court erred in passing adversely upon the defendant’s motion to stay the suit pending the defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings and until the question of the defendant’s discharge should be finally determined, where such refusal was based upon the ground that “a bankrupt having had his first petition in bankruptcy dismissed for want of prosecution, he could not maintain a second petition in bankruptcy, against the creditors scheduled in first petition, and also scheduled in second.” What is actually decided here and in Adams v. McClendon, supra, is not in conflict with McLeod v. Mills, 29 Ga. App. 87 (91 S. E. 239).

2. The judge of the superior court therefore erred in overruling the defendant’s certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The facts in this case being substantially the same as those reported in the ease of Adams v. McClendon, 30 Ga. App. 559 (118 S. E. 497), the trial court erred in passing adversely upon the defendant’s motion to stay the suit pending the defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings and until the question of the defendant’s discharge should be finally determined, where such refusal was based upon the ground that “a bankrupt having had his first petition in bankruptcy dismissed for want of prosecution, he could not maintain a second petition in bankruptcy, against the creditors scheduled in first petition, and also scheduled in second.” What is actually decided here and in Adams v. McClendon, supra, is not in conflict with McLeod v. Mills, 29 Ga. App. 87 (91 S. E. 239).

2. The judge of the superior court therefore erred in overruling the defendant’s certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E. 456, 31 Ga. App. 58, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-bassett-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack