Coffey v. Mitchell

77 S.E. 561, 139 Ga. 430, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 455
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 12, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 561 (Coffey v. Mitchell) 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
Coffey v. Mitchell, 77 S.E. 561, 139 Ga. 430, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 455 (Ga. 1913).

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. The mere fact that a creditor holds the note of his debtor, which contains a waiver of exemption rights, does not give the creditor any -lien, equitable or otherwise, on property of the debtor which he ha» scheduled in 'bankruptcy ■ and asked that it be set apart as exempt. See Bowen v. Keller, 130 Ga. 31, 34 (60 S. E. 174, 124 Am. St. R. 164).

2. No relief being sought as against the bankrupt defendant other than a special judgment fixing a lien on the property which he was seeking to have set apart as an exemption in bankruptcy, arid it not appearing that any exemption had actually been set apart, but only applied for, the petition stated no ground for equitable relief.

(a) Whether or not protective injunction might be asked, pending application for an exemption and before its actual assignment, to prevent its reception by the debtor, is not now before us for decision.

[431]*431February 12, 1913. Complaint. Before Judge Ellis. Eulton superior court. September 11,1911. John W. Cox and Burton Cloud, for defendants. Horton Brothers & Burr ess, for plaintiff.

3. A creditor can join in one action two joint obligors on a promissory note, and seek a general judgment against one, although he may only pray for some special relief as to the other.

4. The petition should have been retained as to EL W. Mitchell, and the court erred in dismissing it on general demurrer.

.5. The grounds of demurrer not specially dealt with were either speaking in character or were otherwise without merit.

Judgment reversed.

BecJc, J., absent. The other Justices concur.

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

Related

Mims v. Dixie Finance Corp.
426 F. Supp. 627 (N.D. Georgia, 1976)
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Hirsch
192 S.E. 435 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Coppedge v. Bruce
170 S.E. 35 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Pettett v. Thompson
136 S.E. 71 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Miller v. Equitable Credit Co.
133 S.E. 750 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Morris Fertilizer Co. v. White, McCurdy & Co.
122 S.E. 692 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Joyner v. Bank of Menlo
120 S.E. 4 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Peppers v. Cauthen
84 S.E. 477 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 S.E. 561, 139 Ga. 430, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffey-v-mitchell-ga-1913.