Davis v. Flowers

Supreme Court of Georgia

Davis v. Flowers

121 S.E. 810, 157 Ga. 481, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 185

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 13, 1924

DocketNo. 3849

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 S.E. 810 (Davis v. Flowers) 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

Davis v. Flowers, 121 S.E. 810, 157 Ga. 481, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 185 (Ga. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

The decree, to which no exception was taken, considered in connection with the contract embodied in the pleadings, required, as a condition precedent to a conveyance of the property by the respondent, that the petitioner assume three outstanding promissory notes for $5000 payable to J. R. Smith and J. H. Ewing, together with interest thereon from June 2, 1919, the date of the contract. When on January 4, 1923, the petitioner demanded the execution of a conveyance by the respondent, a compliance with the decree required petitioner to assume not only the notes but the accrued interest thereon from June 2, 1919, which he expressly refused to do. It follows that the judgment discharging the respondent in the rule for contempt was not erroneous, Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

The decree, to which no exception was taken, considered in connection with the contract embodied in the pleadings, required, as a condition precedent to a conveyance of the property by the respondent, that the petitioner assume three outstanding promissory notes for $5000 payable to J. R. Smith and J. H. Ewing, together with interest thereon from June 2, 1919, the date of the contract. When on January 4, 1923, the petitioner demanded the execution of a conveyance by the respondent, a compliance with the decree required petitioner to assume not only the notes but the accrued interest thereon from June 2, 1919, which he expressly refused to do. It follows that the judgment discharging the respondent in the rule for contempt was not erroneous, Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 810, 157 Ga. 481, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-flowers-ga-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack