COMMONWEALTH UNITED CORPORATION v. Rothberg

Supreme Court of Georgia

COMMONWEALTH UNITED CORPORATION v. Rothberg

143 S.E.2d 741, 221 Ga. 175, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 412

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 12, 1965

Docket23011

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 143 S.E.2d 741 (COMMONWEALTH UNITED CORPORATION v. Rothberg) 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

COMMONWEALTH UNITED CORPORATION v. Rothberg, 143 S.E.2d 741, 221 Ga. 175, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 412 (Ga. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Cook, Justice.

“The general rule is that an action [at law] will not be enjoined, at the instance of one not a party thereto.” Stone v. King-Hodgson Co., 140 Ga. 487, 491 (79 SE 122). “Equity will not enjoin the proceedings and processes of a court of law, unless there be some intervening equity or other proper defense of which the party, without fault on his part, cannot avail himself at law.” Code § 55-103.

In this case the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the prosecution of a suit to which it is not a party and by the result of which it will not be bound.

The fact that the plaintiff in the action sought to' be enjoined is a majority stockholder of the defendant corporation in that action did not operate to make the action a collusive one, or the same person both plaintiff and defendant. Waycross Air-Line R. Co. v. Offerman & Western R. Co., 109 Ga. 827, 828 (35 SE 275); Shingler v. Shingler, 184 Ga. 671, 672 (192 SE 824); Independent Gasoline Co. v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, 190 Ga. 613, 614 (10 SE2d 58). Nor would collusion, if it existed, constitute grounds for enjoining the proceeding at the suit of one not a party and who would not be bound by the judgment. Smith v. Cuyler, 78 Ga. 654, 659 (3 SE 406).

For the foregoing reasons, it can not be said that the trial judge erred in denying the interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed).

All the Justices concur.

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

Cook, Justice.

“The general rule is that an action [at law] will not be enjoined, at the instance of one not a party thereto.” Stone v. King-Hodgson Co., 140 Ga. 487, 491 (79 SE 122). “Equity will not enjoin the proceedings and processes of a court of law, unless there be some intervening equity or other proper defense of which the party, without fault on his part, cannot avail himself at law.” Code § 55-103.

In this case the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the prosecution of a suit to which it is not a party and by the result of which it will not be bound.

The fact that the plaintiff in the action sought to' be enjoined is a majority stockholder of the defendant corporation in that action did not operate to make the action a collusive one, or the same person both plaintiff and defendant. Waycross Air-Line R. Co. v. Offerman & Western R. Co., 109 Ga. 827, 828 (35 SE 275); Shingler v. Shingler, 184 Ga. 671, 672 (192 SE 824); Independent Gasoline Co. v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, 190 Ga. 613, 614 (10 SE2d 58). Nor would collusion, if it existed, constitute grounds for enjoining the proceeding at the suit of one not a party and who would not be bound by the judgment. Smith v. Cuyler, 78 Ga. 654, 659 (3 SE 406).

For the foregoing reasons, it can not be said that the trial judge erred in denying the interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed).

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E.2d 741, 221 Ga. 175, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-united-corporation-v-rothberg-ga-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack