Satterwhite v. Beall, Stewart & Ansley

28 Ga. 525
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1859·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

[526]*526By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

This whole proceeding, from first to last, is founded upon an entire misapprehension of the act of 1856, giving a remedy against trust estates in a court of law; and prescribing the mode of procedure thereon.

In the first place, the claim must be against the trust estate, as for blacksmith’s work done on the plantation, medical services rendered the trust negroes, &c., and not for a demand against the cestui que trust, such as this is.

Again; the judgment binds the corpus of the trust estate and is a lien thereon, and is to be enforced by levy and sale of the property itself. In other words, it is in all respects a proceeding at law, to collect claims of'•one class only, namely, such as accrue from benefit done to the trust estate in its preservation, maintainance, &c. The appointment of a receiver, therefore, to pay the judgment out of the rents, issues and profits, is wholly foreign to the statute, and the object for which it was passed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Satterwhite v. Beall, Stewart & Ansley, 28 Ga. 525 (Ga. 1859).

28 Ga. 525 (Satterwhite v. Beall, Stewart & Ansley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Robinson v. Lindsey
195 S.E. 917 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Faulk v. Smith
148 S.E. 100 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Maxwell & Co. v. Rice
73 S.E. 550 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Sanders v. Houston Guano & Warehouse Co.
32 S.E. 610 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)
Moore, Jenkins & Co. v. Lampkin
63 Ga. 748 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1879)
Hayden v. Johnson
59 Ga. 104 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1877)