Lowe v. Equitable Mortgage Co.

29 S.E. 148, 102 Ga. 103, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 461
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 28, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 29 S.E. 148 (Lowe v. Equitable Mortgage Co.) 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
Lowe v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 29 S.E. 148, 102 Ga. 103, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 461 (Ga. 1897).

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

This case turned upon the question whether or not minors could collaterally attack a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, in an action brought in their name by one purporting to be their next friend, there being nothing on the face of the record suggesting fraud or the want of good faith, or that the action was instituted by the.plaintiff therein without authority, or with any intention other than a bona fide purpose to protect the interest of the minors. The ruling we have made upon this question is supported by the decisions of this court in the cases of Ross v. Southwestern R. R. Co., 53 Ga. 514, and Watkins v. Lawton, 69 Ga. 671. Both of these cases are cited approvingly in Freeman v. Prendergast, 94 Ga. 385. Of course, if an action ostensibly for the benefit of minors was in fact brought without proper authority, or in fraud of their rights, or if a judgment rendered therein was for any other reason unlawful or improper, [106]*106it could be directly attacked in the court by which it was rendered. That, however, would be an entirely different matter from calling in question the validity of a judgment apparently regular and legal, when offered in evidence against the minors in another and altogether distinct proceeding. Such an attack would be merely collateral, and to allow it to prevail under-such circumstances might result in great injustice to third persons who had in good faith acquired rights under and by virtue of the original judgment. We are quite confident that the trial judge was correct in ruling that the judgment in issue in the present case could not be thus assailed.

Judgment affirmed.

AU the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Brinsfield v. Robbins
188 S.E. 7 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Mann v. Showalter
88 S.E. 968 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Byrom v. Varner
72 S.E. 596 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)
Walden v. Walden
57 S.E. 323 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 S.E. 148, 102 Ga. 103, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowe-v-equitable-mortgage-co-ga-1897.