Gill v. Gill
This text of 87 S.E.2d 389 (Gill v. Gill) 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 court of equity shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the ordinary over the settlement of accounts of administrators.” Code § 113-2203. Equity will not interfere with the regular administration of estates at the instance of an heir except where there is danger of loss or other injury to his interest. Code § 37-403. “Where law and equity have concurrent jurisdiction, whichever first takes jurisdiction shall retain it, unless a good reason shall be given for the interference of equity.” Code § 37-122.
2. The petition fails to show that the available remedies at law are made[568]*568quate. Code § 113-1229. The present case falls squarely within the rulings of this court in Hoffman v. Chester, 204 Ga. 296 (49 S. E. 2d 760), Hamrick v. Hamrick, 206 Ga. 564 (58 S. E. 2d 145), Salter v. Salter, 209 Ga. 511 (74 S. E. 2d 241), and Turner v. Turner, 210 Ga. 586 (82 S. E. 2d 137).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
87 S.E.2d 389, 211 Ga. 567, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-v-gill-ga-1955.