Jackson v. Fite

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jackson v. Fite

140 S.E. 754, 165 Ga. 382, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 405

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 16, 1927

DocketNo. 6056

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 140 S.E. 754 (Jackson v. Fite) 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

Jackson v. Fite, 140 S.E. 754, 165 Ga. 382, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 405 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

Where an equitable petition was filed by one as a depositor in a certain private bank for the benefit of himself and other depositors, in which petition application is made for the appointment of a re[383]*383ceiver to preserve the assets of the bank which is alleged to be insolvent, and to liquidate the same for the benefit of petitioner and other creditors, after a receiver had been appointed upon such petition other depositors might, upon application, be allowed to intervene as parties plaintiff. But where the proposed intervenors seek to have other parties defendant made, not made in the suit as it stood when their application for intervention was filed, and upon demurrer to such intervention and objections' by the persons whom the intervenors seek to make parties defendant the court sustained the objections made and entered judgment “dismissing the intervention and proceeding on general demurrers so far as they sought to make said children above named or the executors individually [the proposed new party defendants] parties to the ease,” the refusal of the court to make the new parties defendant is an .order interlocutory in its nature, and a writ of error will not lie to such refusal, where there has been no final judgment in the case. Civil Code, § 6138; Clark v. Dallas Land Co., 141 Ga. 110 (80 S. E. 556) ; Ray v. Anderson, 117 Ga. 136 (43 S. E. 408) ; Johnson v. Holmes, 150 Ga. 195 (103 S. E. 157).

No. 6056. December 16, 1927. Pat Haralson and Joseph G. Collins, for plaintiffs. J. B. J ones, Pearce Matthews, and IF. V. Lance, for defendants.

Under the special facts of the case, it is ordered that the plaintiff in error have leave to file the official copy of the bill of exceptions, now in the office of the clerk of the superior court, as exceptions pendente lite.

Writ of error dismissed, ivith direction.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, P. J.

Where an equitable petition was filed by one as a depositor in a certain private bank for the benefit of himself and other depositors, in which petition application is made for the appointment of a re[383]*383ceiver to preserve the assets of the bank which is alleged to be insolvent, and to liquidate the same for the benefit of petitioner and other creditors, after a receiver had been appointed upon such petition other depositors might, upon application, be allowed to intervene as parties plaintiff. But where the proposed intervenors seek to have other parties defendant made, not made in the suit as it stood when their application for intervention was filed, and upon demurrer to such intervention and objections' by the persons whom the intervenors seek to make parties defendant the court sustained the objections made and entered judgment “dismissing the intervention and proceeding on general demurrers so far as they sought to make said children above named or the executors individually [the proposed new party defendants] parties to the ease,” the refusal of the court to make the new parties defendant is an .order interlocutory in its nature, and a writ of error will not lie to such refusal, where there has been no final judgment in the case. Civil Code, § 6138; Clark v. Dallas Land Co., 141 Ga. 110 (80 S. E. 556) ; Ray v. Anderson, 117 Ga. 136 (43 S. E. 408) ; Johnson v. Holmes, 150 Ga. 195 (103 S. E. 157).

No. 6056. December 16, 1927. Pat Haralson and Joseph G. Collins, for plaintiffs. J. B. J ones, Pearce Matthews, and IF. V. Lance, for defendants.

Under the special facts of the case, it is ordered that the plaintiff in error have leave to file the official copy of the bill of exceptions, now in the office of the clerk of the superior court, as exceptions pendente lite.

Writ of error dismissed, ivith direction.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 754, 165 Ga. 382, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-fite-ga-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack