Chancey v. Citizens Bank of Eustis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Chancey v. Citizens Bank of Eustis

147 S.E. 383, 168 Ga. 171, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 97

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 23, 1929

DocketNo. 6588

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 147 S.E. 383 (Chancey v. Citizens Bank of Eustis) 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

Chancey v. Citizens Bank of Eustis, 147 S.E. 383, 168 Ga. 171, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 97 (Ga. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. Tlis petition as amended sets out a cause of action. Tlie plaintiff has not an adequate and complete remedy at law. One of the prayers of the petition is, that all of the assets of all the branch banks of the Georgia State Bank be marshaled and be brought together and applied to all the creditors of all the branch banks, as provided by law; that the trustees named in the original petition be required to restore to the superintendent of banks the assets now in their hands; and that an accounting be had by them as to the assets disposed of, etc.

2. The petition as amended is not subject to demurrer on any of the following grounds: (a) that the assets are in the possession of the superintendent of banks, and the court is without jurisdiction to interfere therewith; and that the superintendent of banks is the agent of the State, and is not subject to suit, (b) That it is not alleged that the plaintiff’s claim has been filed with the superintendent, and rejected, or improperly classified, (c) That the order of the superior court authorizing the sales of the several branches can not be collaterally attacked. See Jolly v. Hardman, 111 Ga. 749, 753 (36 S. E. 952). This is a direct proceeding to set aside these orders of sale, (d) That the plaintiff has been guilty of such laches as would prevent the plaintiff from attacking the order of the superior court approving the sales of the assets of certain branch banks, (e) That every right claimed by the plaintiff may be enforced without interfering with the administration of the bank by the superintendent. (f) That there is a nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties, (g) That the superior court of Eulton County is without jurisdiction as to these defendants, (h) That the petition is multifarious.

3. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer on all the grounds thereof except the fourth, which was sustained, and which was directed at that portion of the petition which sought the appointment of a receiver.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. H. E. Coates and Lawson & Ware, for plaintiffs in error. Hugh Howell, Howell, Heyman & Bolding, Dorsey & Shelton, Robert H. Jones Jr., and Ralph H. Pharr, contra.

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

Hill, J.

1. Tlis petition as amended sets out a cause of action. Tlie plaintiff has not an adequate and complete remedy at law. One of the prayers of the petition is, that all of the assets of all the branch banks of the Georgia State Bank be marshaled and be brought together and applied to all the creditors of all the branch banks, as provided by law; that the trustees named in the original petition be required to restore to the superintendent of banks the assets now in their hands; and that an accounting be had by them as to the assets disposed of, etc.

2. The petition as amended is not subject to demurrer on any of the following grounds: (a) that the assets are in the possession of the superintendent of banks, and the court is without jurisdiction to interfere therewith; and that the superintendent of banks is the agent of the State, and is not subject to suit, (b) That it is not alleged that the plaintiff’s claim has been filed with the superintendent, and rejected, or improperly classified, (c) That the order of the superior court authorizing the sales of the several branches can not be collaterally attacked. See Jolly v. Hardman, 111 Ga. 749, 753 (36 S. E. 952). This is a direct proceeding to set aside these orders of sale, (d) That the plaintiff has been guilty of such laches as would prevent the plaintiff from attacking the order of the superior court approving the sales of the assets of certain branch banks, (e) That every right claimed by the plaintiff may be enforced without interfering with the administration of the bank by the superintendent. (f) That there is a nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties, (g) That the superior court of Eulton County is without jurisdiction as to these defendants, (h) That the petition is multifarious.

3. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer on all the grounds thereof except the fourth, which was sustained, and which was directed at that portion of the petition which sought the appointment of a receiver.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. H. E. Coates and Lawson & Ware, for plaintiffs in error. Hugh Howell, Howell, Heyman & Bolding, Dorsey & Shelton, Robert H. Jones Jr., and Ralph H. Pharr, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E. 383, 168 Ga. 171, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chancey-v-citizens-bank-of-eustis-ga-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack