Conwell v. Neal

Supreme Court of Georgia

Conwell v. Neal

41 S.E. 629, 115 Ga. 421, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 434

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 29, 1902·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

An equitable petition to enjoin a pending action at law and bring the plaintiff therein to a settlement of certain cross-demands is not good when insolvency is not alleged, and when no reason appears why the plaintiff in the equitable proceeding can not, in defense to such action, set up those cross-demands against the other party.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis, J., absent.

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

Lumpkin, P. J.

An equitable petition to enjoin a pending action at law and bring the plaintiff therein to a settlement of certain cross-demands is not good when insolvency is not alleged, and when no reason appears why the plaintiff in the equitable proceeding can not, in defense to such action, set up those cross-demands against the other party.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis, J., absent.

Conwell v. Neal, 41 S.E. 629, 115 Ga. 421, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 434 (Ga. 1902).

Pincite

41 S.E. 629 (Conwell v. Neal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related