Cochran v. Bennett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cochran v. Bennett

139 S.E. 428, 37 Ga. App. 202, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 579

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 9, 1927

Docket17746

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 139 S.E. 428 (Cochran v. Bennett) 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

Cochran v. Bennett, 139 S.E. 428, 37 Ga. App. 202, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 579 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

The judge of the superior court, when passing upon an application of the superintendent of banks for permission to sell the assets of a bank which lias been taken over by the superintendent, and in passing an order authorizing a sale of the assets of the bank by the superintendent, as is provided in article 7, section 7, of the banking act, approved August 16, 1919 (Ga. L. 1919, p. 135, 150), is -not administering the assets of the bank, and passes upon and adjudicates no rights of' parties, but is merely, under statutory authority, directing a State officer who is not an officer or receiver of the court, in the discharge of a statutory duty. This is true notwithstanding that the statute requires that before the passage of such order the bank be made a party to the proceedings, by proper notice issued by the court. Such an order of sale is not judicial, but is purely administrative or ministerial, and is therefore not a judgment of a court which can be reviewed by a writ of error. Philadelphia Underwriters v. Folds, 156 Ga. 773 (2) (120 S. E. 102); In re Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443 (17 Sup. Ct. 385, 41 L. ed. 782); Ex parte Moore, 6 Fed. (2d) 905, 908; Fifer v. Williams, 5 Fed. (2d) 286, 288; In re Union Bank, 176 App. Div. 477 (163 N. Y. Supp. 485, 488).

'Writ of error dismissed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. H. E. Anderson, for plaintiffs in error. Orville A. Parle, Oarl N. Davie, contra.

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

Stephens, J.

The judge of the superior court, when passing upon an application of the superintendent of banks for permission to sell the assets of a bank which lias been taken over by the superintendent, and in passing an order authorizing a sale of the assets of the bank by the superintendent, as is provided in article 7, section 7, of the banking act, approved August 16, 1919 (Ga. L. 1919, p. 135, 150), is -not administering the assets of the bank, and passes upon and adjudicates no rights of' parties, but is merely, under statutory authority, directing a State officer who is not an officer or receiver of the court, in the discharge of a statutory duty. This is true notwithstanding that the statute requires that before the passage of such order the bank be made a party to the proceedings, by proper notice issued by the court. Such an order of sale is not judicial, but is purely administrative or ministerial, and is therefore not a judgment of a court which can be reviewed by a writ of error. Philadelphia Underwriters v. Folds, 156 Ga. 773 (2) (120 S. E. 102); In re Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443 (17 Sup. Ct. 385, 41 L. ed. 782); Ex parte Moore, 6 Fed. (2d) 905, 908; Fifer v. Williams, 5 Fed. (2d) 286, 288; In re Union Bank, 176 App. Div. 477 (163 N. Y. Supp. 485, 488).

'Writ of error dismissed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. H. E. Anderson, for plaintiffs in error. Orville A. Parle, Oarl N. Davie, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 428, 37 Ga. App. 202, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-bennett-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack