Flannegan, Abell & Co. v. Hardeman & Sparks

Supreme Court of Georgia

Flannegan, Abell & Co. v. Hardeman & Sparks

53 Ga. 440

DecidedJuly 15, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 53 Ga. 440 (Flannegan, Abell & Co. v. Hardeman & Sparks) 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

Flannegan, Abell & Co. v. Hardeman & Sparks, 53 Ga. 440 (Ga. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Trippe, Judge.

The majority of this court was inclined to put the affirmance of the judgment of the chancellor on the ground upon which he rested it.- For myself the fact that there was no charge made in the bill showing that the defendants, Hill or Hardeman & Sparks, were insolvent or unable to respond for the eighteen bales of cotton, or to any decree that might be obtained against them, when taken in connection with the reason assigned by the judge for his refusal to appoint a receiver, etc., makes a pretty clear case for affirming the judgment : See sections 274 and 3098, Code.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Trippe, Judge.

The majority of this court was inclined to put the affirmance of the judgment of the chancellor on the ground upon which he rested it.- For myself the fact that there was no charge made in the bill showing that the defendants, Hill or Hardeman & Sparks, were insolvent or unable to respond for the eighteen bales of cotton, or to any decree that might be obtained against them, when taken in connection with the reason assigned by the judge for his refusal to appoint a receiver, etc., makes a pretty clear case for affirming the judgment : See sections 274 and 3098, Code.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Ga. 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flannegan-abell-co-v-hardeman-sparks-ga-1874.