Gray v. Wright

51 S.E. 373, 123 Ga. 295, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 446
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1905·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Candler, J.

1. A consent decree will not be set aside because, “ through accident and mistake,” one of the consenting parties failed to introduce evidence which was in his possession and which might, if submitted on a trial, have resulted in the rendition of a decree different from the one which was taken by consent.

2. It is not error to refuse to entertain a petition to enjoin the cutting of timber on land which, by a decree to which the plaintiff consented, has been legally adjudged to be the property of the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, C. J., absent.

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

Gray v. Wright, 51 S.E. 373, 123 Ga. 295, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 446 (Ga. 1905).

51 S.E. 373 (Gray v. Wright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Estes v. Estes
14 S.E.2d 681 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)