Dunbar v. Hancock

Supreme Court of Georgia

Dunbar v. Hancock

136 S.E. 137, 163 Ga. 371, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 83

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 18, 1926

DocketNo. 5523

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 S.E. 137 (Dunbar v. Hancock) 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

Dunbar v. Hancock, 136 S.E. 137, 163 Ga. 371, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 83 (Ga. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The controlling question in this ease is whether the court erred in ordering the consolidation of (1) an equitable proceeding brought by O. 0. Hancock against J. A. Smith and S. D. Smith, in which an accounting of a partnership business and a receiver were sought; (2) a claim case in which R. E. Dunbar is plaintiff in fi. fa., J. A. Smith defendant in fi. fa., and 0.0. Hancock claimant; and (3) a garnishment proceeding in which R. E. Dunbar is plaintiff, J. A. Smith defendant, and Culver Aultman garnishee, 0. 0. Hancock having dissolved the garnishment as a claimant of the property impounded. R. B. Dunbar demurred to the petition for consolidation. The equitable proceeding, as shown by the pleadings, made no reference to any matter in issue in either claim case. There was no matter in issue in either of the claim cases that could affect in any way the result in the equitable proceeding. Held, that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the petition for consolidation, and in ordering the eases consolidated. Portwood v. Huntress, 113 Ga. 815 (39 S. E. 299). Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gilbert, J.

The controlling question in this ease is whether the court erred in ordering the consolidation of (1) an equitable proceeding brought by O. 0. Hancock against J. A. Smith and S. D. Smith, in which an accounting of a partnership business and a receiver were sought; (2) a claim case in which R. E. Dunbar is plaintiff in fi. fa., J. A. Smith defendant in fi. fa., and 0.0. Hancock claimant; and (3) a garnishment proceeding in which R. E. Dunbar is plaintiff, J. A. Smith defendant, and Culver Aultman garnishee, 0. 0. Hancock having dissolved the garnishment as a claimant of the property impounded. R. B. Dunbar demurred to the petition for consolidation. The equitable proceeding, as shown by the pleadings, made no reference to any matter in issue in either claim case. There was no matter in issue in either of the claim cases that could affect in any way the result in the equitable proceeding. Held, that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the petition for consolidation, and in ordering the eases consolidated. Portwood v. Huntress, 113 Ga. 815 (39 S. E. 299). Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 137, 163 Ga. 371, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunbar-v-hancock-ga-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack