Illinois Sewing Machine Co. v. Whilden

57 S.E. 235, 128 Ga. 169, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 54
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 13, 1907·Published

Opinion

Beck, J.

1. This ease was brought under the trader’s act of 1881 (Civil Code, §2716). As'has been frequently ruled, this act is to be construed strictly; and to entitle creditors to the relief provided for therein, it must appear that the debtor was engaged in business as a trader at the time of the filing of the petition. Mercer v. Houston Guano Co., 95 Ga. 359.

2. It appearing, from the evidence, that the defendant, at the time of the filing of the plaintiff’s petition, had ceased to be a trader, the judge properly refused to grant an injunction and appoint a receiver.

Judgment affirmed.

Fish, G. J., absent. The other Justices concur.

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

Illinois Sewing Machine Co. v. Whilden, 57 S.E. 235, 128 Ga. 169, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 54 (Ga. 1907).

57 S.E. 235 (Illinois Sewing Machine Co. v. Whilden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mercer v. Houston Guano & Warehouse Co.
22 S.E. 638 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1895)