Smith v. Hornsby

Supreme Court of Georgia

Smith v. Hornsby

53 Ga. 182

DecidedJuly 15, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 53 Ga. 182 (Smith v. Hornsby) 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

Smith v. Hornsby, 53 Ga. 182 (Ga. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

McCay, Judge.

No substantial decree is sought against the only defendant living in the county of Henry. The bill admits that the execution is not paid- and that complainant is bound to pay it. The whole equity sought is against the parties living in Campbell. The truth is, the Henry county defendant is not bothering the complainant at all. Hé has no possession of the land. That is held adversely by one of the Campbell county defendants, and so far, the defendant, Smith, resident in Henry is concerned, he is doing the very thing the complainant [186]*186wants — trying to subject the land to this debt. That it is subject, is the whole equity of the bill, and it is absurd to say that Henry county superior court has jurisdiction to decree this against the present holder of the fi. fa. when he is doing his very best, by a levy, to secure the sale. We think no substantial relief is sought against the Henry county defendant, and that the bill ought to have been dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

McCay, Judge.

No substantial decree is sought against the only defendant living in the county of Henry. The bill admits that the execution is not paid- and that complainant is bound to pay it. The whole equity sought is against the parties living in Campbell. The truth is, the Henry county defendant is not bothering the complainant at all. Hé has no possession of the land. That is held adversely by one of the Campbell county defendants, and so far, the defendant, Smith, resident in Henry is concerned, he is doing the very thing the complainant [186]*186wants — trying to subject the land to this debt. That it is subject, is the whole equity of the bill, and it is absurd to say that Henry county superior court has jurisdiction to decree this against the present holder of the fi. fa. when he is doing his very best, by a levy, to secure the sale. We think no substantial relief is sought against the Henry county defendant, and that the bill ought to have been dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Ga. 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hornsby-ga-1874.