Georgia Marble Company v. Tucker
This text of 43 S.E.2d 245 (Georgia Marble Company v. Tucker) 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.
Opinion
1. A petition, alleging merely that a named defendant “claims” or “contends” that it is the owner of an interest in realty owned by the petitioner, falls short of stating a justiciable dispute as , contemplated by section 1 of the Declaratory Judgments Act (Ga. L. 1945, p. 137).
2. Under the rule stated by this court in Mayor &c. of Athens v. Gerdine, 202 Ga. 197 (42 S. E. 2d, 567), the Declaratory Judgments Act does not take the place of existing remedies. “It therefore follows that where there exists a remedy, either in law or in equity, a petition for declaratory judgment will lie only when there be some fact or circumstances which necessitate a determination of disputes, not merely for the purpose of enforcing accrued rights, but in order to guide and protect the petitioner from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the propriety of some future act or conduct which is properly incident to his alleged rights, and which future action without such direction might reasonably jeopardize his interest.” Mayor &c. of Athens v. Gerdine, supra. Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
43 S.E.2d 245, 202 Ga. 390, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-marble-company-v-tucker-ga-1947.