Ramey v. McCoy

193 S.E. 790, 56 Ga. App. 741, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 220
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 15, 1937
Docket26449
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 S.E. 790 (Ramey v. McCoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ramey v. McCoy, 193 S.E. 790, 56 Ga. App. 741, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 220 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Opinion

Felton, J.

Jurisdiction of a State-court receivership, based on a judgment on a note and security deed, is not superseded by jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court arising out of proceedings commenced over four months later. In re Watts, 190 U. S. 1 (23 Sup. Ct. 718, 47 L. ed. 933); Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U. S. 605 (38 Sup. Ct. 215, 62 L. ed. 507); Straton v. New, 283 U. S. 318 (51 Sup. Ct. 465, 75 L. ed. 1060); In re Marts, 38 F. (2d) 283 (15 Am. Bankr. R. (N. S.) 293); Griffin v. Lenhart, 266 Fed. 671; Parks v. Baldwin, 123 Ga. 869 (51 S. E. 722); Reed v. Equitable Trust Co., 115 Ga. 780 (42 S. E. 102). This is true as to a petition under the Erazier-Lemke act of 1935, wherein it is specifically provided that the jurisdiction and powers of the courts with reference to such petition and parties and rights involved shall be the same as if a voluntary petition for adjudication had been filed and a decree of adjudication entered. U. S. C. A. title 11, § 203 (n). The [742]*742cases of Johnson v. Bolton, 53 Ga. App. 568 (186 S. E. 589), and Saint John v. Johnson, 54 Ga. App. 87 (187 S. E. 134), did not involve situations where a State-court receiver had obtained jurisdiction of res based on lien. It was accordingly not error for the judge of the superior court to deny an application of one who had filed a petition under the Erazier-Lemke act of 1935, to stay the State-court receivership proceedings.

Decided October 15, 1937. Rehearing denied November 26, 1937. Robert McMillan, for plaintiff. Bynum & Fmnlcum, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

StepJiens, J?. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 S.E. 790, 56 Ga. App. 741, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramey-v-mccoy-gactapp-1937.