Pool v. May
This text of 158 S.E. 424 (Pool v. May) 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
The court did not err in sustaining the oral motion, and in dismissing the petition.
2. The judgment denying an injunction does not deprive the petitioners of the legal right to unconditionally tender to the payee the amount due, as principal and interest, on the first note executed, in full payment, and thereby stop interest, or, if payment is refused and suit is filed, to pay into court such amount, with direction that it be credited on said note. The effect of such payment would be to stop all further proceedings to obtain judgment on that debt, as well as court costs as to it. The suit could then legally proceed to judgment on the remaining two notes, secured by deed to the portion of land not conveyed to the son and daughter of Pool; and when so concluded such judgment would be a special lien for principal, interest, and costs of court, on the portion of land last mentioned, and a general lien on other property of the estate, but not on property which the deceased conveyed by deed to his son and daughter.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
158 S.E. 424, 172 Ga. 622, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pool-v-may-ga-1931.