Fitzgerald v. Bowen

40 S.E. 735, 114 Ga. 691, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 763
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 6, 1902·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Little, J.

1. One who had full knowledge of the pendency of a case in which he had a direct pecuniary interest, and neither sought to become a party thereto nor made any effort to intervene therein, so-as to protect his rights, can not, after the rendition of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in such suit, maintain an equitable petition to set such judgment abide or restrain its enforcement.

2. Applying the rule announced above to the evidence disclosed by the record in the present case, the judge erred in granting an interlocutory injunction.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Fitzgerald v. Bowen, 40 S.E. 735, 114 Ga. 691, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 763 (Ga. 1902).

40 S.E. 735 (Fitzgerald v. Bowen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rentz Family Farms v. Steven M. Rentz
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016
Rentz v. Rentz
793 S.E.2d 112 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016)
S-D Rira, LLC v. Outback Property Owners' Ass'n
765 S.E.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014)
Brownlee v. Brownlee
46 S.E.2d 901 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Hurt Building Inc. v. Atlanta Trust Co.
182 S.E. 187 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Walden v. Mahnks
174 S.E. 538 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Elliott v. Adams
160 S.E. 336 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Latimer v. Irish-American Bank
47 S.E. 322 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)