Poythress v. Poythress

16 Ga. 406
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 15, 1854
DocketNo. 38
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 Ga. 406 (Poythress v. Poythress) 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
Poythress v. Poythress, 16 Ga. 406 (Ga. 1854).

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The only question in this case is, not whether another trustee should be substituted in the place of the one designated by the will, but whether, from the case made by the bill, a receiver should be appointed ad interim ?

The only ground upon which this could be done, is, that the trust estate is likely to be wasted before the termination of the litigation; so that ultimate injury will accrue to the complainant. He, himself, does not, and we apprehend would not, swear that he fears any such result.

[2.] Whether or not Russell K. Poythress is a suitable person to execute the trust devolved upon him by the will of his deceased father, has nothing to do with the interlocutory issue, respecting the appointment of a receiver. The habits of the trustee — his treatment of the cestui que trust, will all be proper matters of inquiry and proof, upon the final trial of the bill. I repeat, the only question now is, is the trust fund likely to [410]*410be squandered, during the short time that may intervene before-the hearing, so as not to be accessible, to answer the decree which may be rendered in the premises ? Considering the personal responsibility of the trustee, is such a result likely to occur ?

It is not alleged that he has gambled off any negro or note-belonging to William B. Poythress, nor even one of Ms own. And the Court below adjudged, that the fact that the defendant played cards and billiards, and frequented the grog-shops, was not, of itself, sufficient to justify the exercise of the extraordinary power invoked on this occasion. And however reprehensible such habits and practices may be, we cannot say that this was such a flagrant abuse of the Judge’s discretion, as to demand the intervention of this Court.

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

Related

Jones v. McPhillips
77 Ala. 314 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Ga. 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poythress-v-poythress-ga-1854.