Stonecipher v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Stonecipher v. Wilson

47 S.E. 936, 120 Ga. 466, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 590

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 10, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 S.E. 936 (Stonecipher v. Wilson) 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

Stonecipher v. Wilson, 47 S.E. 936, 120 Ga. 466, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 590 (Ga. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, J.

This was an application to restrain the cutting of timber. The judge refused to grant an injunction, and the plaintiff excepted. The application was based only upon the grounds that the defendants were insolvent, and that the damages alleged would be irreparable. There was no other equitable reason alleged for the granting of the injunction; nor was there any attempt on the part of the pleader to bring the case within the provisions of the timber cutter’s act embodied in the Civil Code, § 4927. The peti-' tion alleged that the plaintiff was the owner of the land, but no abstract of title of any character was attached to the petition. The right of the plaintiff to an injunction depended, therefore, upon whether it was established to the satisfaction of the judge either that the defendants were insolvent, or that the damages would be irreparable. The evidence at the hearing was not of such a character as to authorize a finding that the damages would be irreparable. The petition alleged that the defendants were not able to [467]*467respond in damages. This was denied in the answer. ' The only evidence before the judge on the subject of insolvency was the verified petition and the verified answer. As there was a direct conflict on this vitally material point, the discretion of the judge in refusing to grant the injunction will not be controlled. See, in this connection, Wiggins v. Middleton, 117 Ga. 162.

Judgment affirmed-

All the Jicstices concur.

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

Cobb, J.

This was an application to restrain the cutting of timber. The judge refused to grant an injunction, and the plaintiff excepted. The application was based only upon the grounds that the defendants were insolvent, and that the damages alleged would be irreparable. There was no other equitable reason alleged for the granting of the injunction; nor was there any attempt on the part of the pleader to bring the case within the provisions of the timber cutter’s act embodied in the Civil Code, § 4927. The peti-' tion alleged that the plaintiff was the owner of the land, but no abstract of title of any character was attached to the petition. The right of the plaintiff to an injunction depended, therefore, upon whether it was established to the satisfaction of the judge either that the defendants were insolvent, or that the damages would be irreparable. The evidence at the hearing was not of such a character as to authorize a finding that the damages would be irreparable. The petition alleged that the defendants were not able to [467]*467respond in damages. This was denied in the answer. ' The only evidence before the judge on the subject of insolvency was the verified petition and the verified answer. As there was a direct conflict on this vitally material point, the discretion of the judge in refusing to grant the injunction will not be controlled. See, in this connection, Wiggins v. Middleton, 117 Ga. 162.

Judgment affirmed-

All the Jicstices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 S.E. 936, 120 Ga. 466, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stonecipher-v-wilson-ga-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack